Ofosu v. McElroy’s Empirical Analysis
98 F.3d 694 · 1996
Citation profile
22 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 43 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2016 · most notably Nken v. Holder (2009), Mohammed v. Reno (2002)
22 federal appellate ·
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (§ 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1105A (§ 106 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1158 (§ 208 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1182 (§ 212 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1226 (§ 236 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1253 (§ 243 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Jones v. Cunningham · Virginian Ry Co v. System Federation No 40 · Shaughnessy v. United States Ex Rel. Mezei · Landon v. Plasencia · Golden State Bottling Company Inc v. National Labor Relations Board
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“rejected the repressive activities in which he was involved, or put himself at risk in order to protect those who were persecuted”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Everyone understands that the [government] is overwhelmed with petitioners and procedures, and that it heavily relies on the word and voluntary compliance of numerous aliens within our borders. It is easy to game this system, but we should not treat disregard of [government] directives as a norm. . . .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Qian Gao v. Gonzales“ordinarily, when a parly seeks [a stay] pending appeal, it is deemed that exclusion is an irreparable harm, and that the INS suffers no offsetting injury”); Sofinet v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 188 F.3d 703 , 707 (7th Cir.1999) (requiring only that a petitioner show a”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Andreiu v. Ashcroft
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.