green
Positive treatment
11.4 score
Treatment trajectory · 2012 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2012
2019
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
Ana Flores v. Rod Danielson
(2×)
See Baud v. Carroll, 634 F.3d 327 , 336–38 (6th Cir. 2011) (describing split of decisions and collecting cases), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 997 (2012).
cited
Cited "see"
Ana Flores v. Rod Danielson
See Baud v. Carroll, 634 F.3d 327 , 336–38 (6th Cir. 2011) (describing split of decisions and collecting cases), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 997 (2012).
cited
Cited "see"
In re Harkins
See Baud v. Carroll, 634 F.3d 327 , 335 & n. 5 (6th Cir.2011)(addressing the interaction of §§ 1322(d) and 1325(b)(4)), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 997 , 181 L.Ed.2d 732 (2012).
discussed
Cited "see"
Anthony Alphonsus v. Eric Holder, Jr.
(2×)
See United States v. Inzunza, 638 F.3d 1006, 1019 (9th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 997 (2012).
discussed
Cited "see"
In re Scott
See Baud v. Carroll, 634 F.3d 327 (6th Cir.2011), cert. denied, —U.S.-, 132 S.Ct. 997 , 181 L.Ed.2d 732 (2012); Cranmer, 697 F.3d at 1318 ; Beaulieu v. Ragos (In re Ragos), 700 F.3d 220 (5th Cir.2012).
discussed
Cited "see"
Nisar Mulla v. Eric Holder, Jr.
Because “proof of prejudice is necessary to establish a due process violation in an immigration hearing,” id., “we need not address the merits of a [due process] claim if’ the alien fails to demonstrate prejudice, Graham v. Mukasey, 519 F.3d 546, 549 (6th Cir.2008); see Ikharo v. Holder, 614 F.3d 622, 631 (6th Cir.2010), vacated on other grounds, — U.S.-, 132 S.Ct. 997 , 181 L.Ed.2d 726 (2012). “[T]o establish the requisite prejudice, [the alien] must show that the due process violations led to a substantially different outcome from that which would have occurred in the absence of …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Bi Qing Zheng v. Loretta Lynch
Graham v. Mukasey, 519 F.3d 546, 549 (6th Cir.2008); see also Ikharo v. Holder, 614 F.3d 622, 631 (6th Cir.2010), vacated on other *297 grounds, — U.S. —, 132 S.Ct. 997 , 181 L.Ed.2d 726 (2012). “[T]o establish the' requisite prejudice, [the petitioner] must show that the due process violations led to a substantially different outcome from that which would have occurred in the absence of those violations.” Graham, 519 F.3d at 549-50 ; see Garza-Moreno v. Gonzales, 489 F.3d 239, 241 (6th Cir.2007) (“An alien must establish ... substantial prejudice to prevail on a due process challeng…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Free Smith v. Derral Adams
The prosecutor’s comments on Smith’s failure to call his girlfriend and Anthony Woods as witnesses did not violate the dictate of Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609 , 85 S.Ct. 1229 , 14 L.Ed.2d 106 (1965). “[A] prosecutor may properly comment upon a defendant’s failure to present witnesses so long as it is not phrased to call attention to [the] defendant’s own failure to testify.” United States v. Castillo, 866 F.2d 1071, 1083 (9th Cir.1988) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also United States v. Inzunza, 638 F.3d 1006, 1023 (9th Cir.2011), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 132 S.Ct.…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Deborah Seafort v. Beverly Burden
See 11 U.S.C. § 1325 (b)(3); see also Baud v. Carroll, 634 F.3d 327, 332-34 (6th Cir.2011) (explaining the appropriate method for calculating “amounts reasonably necessary to be expended”) cert, denied, — U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 997 , 181 L.Ed.2d 732 (Jan. 9, 2012) (No. 10A1008, 11-27), 2012 WL 33293 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Musa Abdul Ikharo
v.
Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General
v.
Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General
No. 10-11217.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jan 9, 2012.
Cited by 2 opinions | Published
On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and petition for writ of certiorari granted. Judgment vacated, and case remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit for further consideration in light of Judulang v. Holder, 565 U.S. 42, 132 S. Ct. 476, 181 L. Ed. 2d 449 (2011).
Same case below, 614 F.3d 622.