green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 3×
11.0 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 2000 ·
…it is a hallmark of our adversary system that we safeguard party access to the evidence tendered in support of a requested court judgment" in order that an alien would not be faced "with a decision against him based on evidence he was never permitted to see and to rebut.
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1987 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1987
2006
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 15 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited "but see"
American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee v. Reno
(3×)
But see Abourezk v. Reagan, 785 F.2d 1043, 1060-61 (D.C.Cir.1986), aff'd mem. by an equally divided court, 484 U.S. 1 , 108 S.Ct. 252 , 98 L.Ed.2d 1 (1987).
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Mitchell v. Allison
before a . . . court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant, 2 the procedural requirement of service of summons must be satisfied.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Najjar v. Reno
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
it is a hallmark of our adversary system that we safeguard party access to the evidence tendered in support of a requested court judgment" in order that an alien would not be faced "with a decision against him based on evidence he was never permitted to see and to rebut.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
City of New York Bruce Cronin v. James A. Baker Iii, Secretary of State
(3×)
mem. 509 op.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Young
Cir. 1986), aff’d, 484 U.S. 1 (1987). 70 State’s Suppl. at 4. 71 Id. at 12. 72 The parties have not provided any sources of legislative history explaining key committee members’ apparent change in understanding between March 14, 1990, and the House’s deliberations and vote on March 27, 1990. 15 the probationers’ constitutional rights, Representative Davis responded: Currently, they already are . . . conducting searches and there is case law which has upheld the right of probation and parole officers to conduct searches.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Mickell v. Geroulo
The Supreme Court in Forrester re-affirmed the long- standing and well-established principle of judicial immunity for “the adjudicative function” which “requires a judge frequently to disappoint some of the most intense and ungovernable desires that people can have.” 484 U.S. at 227.
examined
Cited "see"
American Academy of Religion v. Napolitano
(3×)
See Abourezk v. Reagan, 785 F.2d 1043, 1050 (D.C.Cir.1986) (“Abourezk II”) (“The district court had subject matter competence in this case [involving visa denials] under both its general federal question jurisdiction, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (1982), and its specific jurisdiction over claims arising under the Immigration and Nationality Act, see 8 U.S.C. § 1329 (1982) [repealed].”), aff'd by an equally divided court, 484 U.S. 1 , 108 S.Ct. 252 , 98 L.Ed.2d 1 (1987); Burrafato v. U.S. Dep’t of State, 523 F.2d 554, 557 (2d Cir.1975) (noting that Mandel considered “an alleged violation …
examined
Cited "see"
American Academy of Religion v. Chertoff
(3×)
This broad right to receive information includes a right by citizens of the United States “to have an alien enter and to hear him explain and seek to defend his views.” Mandel, 408 U.S. at 762-64 , 92 S.Ct. 2576 ; accord Abourezk v. Reagan, 785 F.2d 1043, 1050-51 (D.C.Cir.1986), aff'd by an equally divided court, 484 U.S. 1 , 108 S.Ct. 252 , 98 L.Ed.2d 1 (1987); Allende v. Shultz, 605 F.Supp. 1220, 1223 (D.Mass.1985).
cited
Cited "see"
Perry Tschida v. CIR
See Commissioner v. McCoy, 484 U.S. 1 The Honorable Thomas B.
examined
Cited "see"
Naa Dei Nikoi v. Attorney General of the United States
(3×)
The statute provides: The Attorney General shall be charged with the administration and enforcement of this chapter and all other laws relating to the immigration and naturalization of aliens, except insofar as this chapter or such laws relate to the powers, functions, and duties conferred upon the President, the Secretary of State, the officers of the Department of State, or diplomatic or consular officers: Provided, however, That determination and ruling by the Attorney General with respect to all questions of law shall be controlling. 8 U.S.C. § 1103 (a) (emphasis in original); see Abourez…
examined
Cited "see"
Manwani v. U.S. Department of Justice, Immigration & Naturalization Service
(3×)
See Abourezk v. Reagan, 592 F.Supp. 880, 887 (D.D.C.1984), rev’d and remanded on other grounds, 785 F.2d 1043 (D.C.Cir.1986), aff'd by an equally divided Court, 484 U.S. 1 , 108 S.Ct. 252 , 98 L.Ed.2d 1 (1987) (First Amendment imposes limits on the government’s power to exclude aliens and government “may not, con *1379 sistent with the First Amendment, deny entry solely on account of the content of speech”); 9 American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee v. Meese, 714 F.Supp. 1060, 1083-84 (C.D.Cal.1989) appeal filed No. 89-55358 (“ADC v. Meese”) (several provisions of the INA that …
discussed
Cited "see"
Rafeedie v. Immigration & Naturalization Service
(2×)
See Abourezk v. Reagan, 785 F.2d 1043, 1054 (D.C.Cir.1986), aff'd mem., — U.S. —, 108 S.Ct. 252 , 98 L.Ed.2d 1 (1987); see also Allende v. Shultz, 845 F.2d 1111 (2d Cir.1988).
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
HOUSING AUTH. OF THE CITY OF JERSEY CITY v. Jackson
(3×)
See also Abourezk v. Reagan, 785 F.2d 1043, 1052 (D.C.Cir.1986), aff'd by an equally divided court, 484 U.S. 1 , 108 S.Ct. 252 , 98 L.Ed.2d 1 (1987); Cerro Wire & Cable Co. v. FERC, 677 F.2d 124 , 127 n. 2 (D.C.Cir.1982); cf. Yearsley v. Scranton Housing Authority, 487 F.Supp. 784, 787-88 (M.D.Pa.1979).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Murray v. Lyng
(2×)
Id. 467 U.S. at 843 , 104 S.Ct. at 2781-82 ; see also Abourezk v. Reagan, 785 F.2d 1043, 1053 (D.C.Cir.1986), aff'd by an equally divided Court, — U.S. -, 108 S.Ct. 252 , 98 L.Ed.2d 1 (1987).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Murray v. Lyng
(2×)
Id. 467 U.S. at 843 , 104 S.Ct. at 2781-82 ; see also Abourezk v. Reagan, 785 F.2d 1043, 1053 (D.C.Cir.1986), aff'd by an equally divided Court, --- U.S. ----, 108 S.Ct. 252 , 98 L.Ed.2d 1 (1987). 8 We conclude the Act and its legislative history unambiguously embrace foster children within the definition of boarders.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
REAGAN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL.
v.
ABOUREZK ET AL.
v.
ABOUREZK ET AL.
86-656.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 19, 1987.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
Deputy Solicitor General Wallace argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the briefs were Solicitor General Fried, Assistant Attorney General Willard, Roger Clegg, Michael Jay Singer, and Abraham D. Sofaer.
Steven R. Shapiro argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief were Arthur N. Eisenberg, John A. Powell, Charles S. Sims, Peter L. Zimroth, Michael D. Young, and Leonard Boudin.[*]
[*2] PER CURIAM.
The judgment below is affirmed by an equally divided Court.
JUSTICE BLACKMUN took no part in the decision of this case. JUSTICE SCALIA took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
[*] Daniel J. Popeo and Paul D. Kamenar filed a brief for the Washington Legal Foundation et al. as amici curiae urging reversal.
Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for the American Bar Association by Eugene C. Thomas, William A. Bradford, Jr., and David W. Burgett; for the Committee on Immigration and Nationality Law of the New York City Bar Association et al. by Robert M. Kaufman, Carl R. Baldwin, and Steven M. Freeman; for the International Human Rights Law Group by Eli Whitney Debevoise II and Kimberly Till; and for the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights et al. by Arthur C. Helton.
Ann H. Franke and Jacqueline W. Mintz filed a brief for the American Association of University Professors et al. as amici curiae.