green
Positive treatment
4.6 score
Treatment trajectory · 2003 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2003
2014
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
Rolando M. Sierra, Sr. v. D. Romaine, Warden Immigration & Naturalization Service John Ashcroft, Attorney General of the United States of America
(2×)
See Rosales-Garcia v. Holland, 322 F.3d 386, 394 (6th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 123 S.Ct. 2607 , 156 L.Ed.2d 627 (2003); see also Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 688 , 121 S.Ct. 2491, 2498 , 150 L.Ed.2d 653 (2001) (" § 2241 habe-as corpus proceedings remain available as a forum for statutory and constitutional challenges to post-removal-period detention.”). 2 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Gilberto Martinez-Vazquez v. Immigration and Natrualization Service John Ashcroft, Attorney General Robert S. Coleman, Jr.
See id. (interpreting § 1231(a)(6) not to authorize indefinite detention and reversing a denial of a habeas petition on that ground). 11 *908 We reach the same conclusion that the Sixth Circuit reached in Rosales-Garcia v. Holland, 322 F.3d 386 (6th Cir.2003) (en banc), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 123 S.Ct. 2607 , 156 L.Ed.2d 627 (2003), holding that § 309(c) does not preserve former § 1226(e) as authority to detain inadmissible aliens with pre-IIRIRA removal orders.
discussed
Cited "see"
Benitez v. Wallis
See Rosales-Garcia v. Holland, 322 F.3d 386, 401-03 (6th Cir.) (en banc) (discussing which statute to apply), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 123 S.Ct. 2607 , 156 L.Ed.2d 627 (2003); cf. Akinwale v. Ashcroft, 287 F.3d 1050 , 1052 n. 2 (11th Cir.2002) (applying IIRIRA to an indefinite detention claim where deportation proceedings commenced in 1995, prior to IIRIRA, but the final order of deportation was entered on October 3, 1997, after IIRIRA); see also Alanis-Bustamante v. Reno, 201 F.3d 1303, 1306-07 (11th Cir.2000) (discussing how Congress divided deportation proceedings into three categories).
discussed
Cited "see"
Daniel Benitez v. Robert Wallis
See Rosales-Garcia v. Holland, 322 F.3d 386, 401-03 (6th Cir.) ( en banc ) (discussing which statute to apply), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 123 S.Ct. 2607 , 156 L.Ed.2d 627 (2003); cf. Akinwale v. Ashcroft, 287 F.3d 1050 , 1052 n. 2 (11th Cir. 2002) (applying IIRIRA to an indefinite detention claim where deportation proceedings commenced in 1995, prior to IIRIRA, but the final order of deportation was entered on October 3, 1997, after IIRIRA); see also Alanis-Bustamante v. Reno, 201 F.3d 1303, 1306-07 (11th Cir.2000) (discussing how Congress divided deportation proceedings into three categorie…
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Gilmore v. UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER STRONG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL DIVISION
See, e.g., E.E.O.C. v. Joe’s Stone Crabs, Inc., 296 F.3d 1265, 1271 (11th Cir.2002), ce rt. denied, 539 U.S. 941 , 123 S.Ct. 2606 , 156 L.Ed.2d 627 (2003); Bonilla v. Muebles J.J.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Kwai Fun Wong v. United States
In Lynch v. Cannatella, 810 F.2d 1363 (5th Cir.1987), for example, the Fifth Circuit held that the entry fiction "determines the aliens' rights with regard to immigration and deportation proceedings[,]" but "does not limit the right of excludable aliens detained within United States territory to humane treatment." Id. at 1373 . 96 Similarly, the Third Circuit has recognized that "[e]ven an excludable alien is a `person' for purposes of the Fifth Amendment and is thus entitled to substantive due process." Ngo v. INS, 192 F.3d 390, 396 (3d Cir.1999); see also Rosales-Garcia v. Holland, 322 F.3d …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Kwai Fun Wong v. United States
Similarly, the Third Circuit has recognized that “[e]ven an excludable alien is a ‘person’ for purposes of the Fifth Amendment and is thus entitled to substantive due process.” Ngo v. INS, 192 F.3d 390, 396 (3d Cir.1999); see also Rosales-Garcia v. Holland, 322 F.3d 386, 410 (6th Cir.) (en banc) (“The fact that excludable aliens are entitled to less process ... does not mean that they are not at all protected by the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.”), cert. denied, 539 U.S. 941 , 123 S.Ct. 2607 , 156 L.Ed.2d 627 (2003); 28 Sierra v. INS, 258 F.3d 1213 , 1…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Roble v. Pontesso
Compare, e.g., Borrero v. Aljets, 325 F.3d 1003, 1007-08 (8th Cir.2003) (rejecting application of Zadvydas to inadmissible Mariel Cuban paroled into the United States) with Rosales-Garcia v. Holland, 322 F.3d 386, 404-08 (6th Cir.) (en banc) (permitting Mariel Cubans to assert Zadvydas), cert. denied. - U.S. -, 123 S.Ct. 2607 , 156 L.Ed.2d 627 (2003).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Domingo Arango Marquez v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
(2×)
See Benitez v. Wallis, 337 F.3d 1289, 1298-1301 (11th Cir.2003) (per curiam); Borrero v. Aljets, 325 F.3d 1003, 1007 (8th Cir.2003); Rios v. INS, 324 F.3d 296, 297 (5th Cir.2003); Hoyte-Mesa v. Ashcroft, 272 F.3d 989, 991-92 (7th Cir.2001), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 846 , 123 S.Ct. 185 , 154 L.Ed.2d 73 (2002); see also Rosales-Garcia v. Holland, 322 F.3d 386, 416-21 (6th Cir.2003) (Boggs, J., dissenting), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 123 S.Ct. 2607 , 156 L.Ed.2d 627 (2003).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Powell
v.
Alleghany Corp.
v.
Alleghany Corp.
02-1526.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jun 23, 2003.
Published
Powell
v.
Alleghany Corp. et al.
No. 02-1526.
Supreme Court of United States.
June 23, 2003.
1
Appeal from the C. A. 9th Cir.
2
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 52 Fed. Appx. 18.