green
Positive treatment
7.4 score
Treatment trajectory · 1999 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1999
2012
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 26 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited "see"
Sam Neang Keo Chan v. Gonzales
See generally Goncalves v. Reno, 144 F.3d 110 (1st Cir.1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1004 , 119 S.Ct. 1140 , 143 L.Ed.2d 208 (1999).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Marco Garcia-Echaverria
See Henderson v. INS, 157 F.3d 106, 122-29 (2d Cir.1998), ce rt. denied, 526 U.S. 1004 , 119 S.Ct. 1141 , 143 L.Ed.2d 209 (1999) (holding that a habeas corpus petition is properly filed in a district court that has personal jurisdiction over the petitioner's immediate custodian, but declining to answer the question of whether an alien's habeas corpus petition is also properly filed in a district court that has personal jurisdiction over the Attorney General). 13 . 18 U.S.C. § 3161 (b) requires: Any information or indictment charging an individual with the commission of an offense shall be fil…
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Garcia-Echaverria
See Henderson v. INS, 157 F.3d 10 6, 122-29 (2d Cir. Finally, Garcia-Echaverria argues that his indictment 199 8), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1004 (1999) (holding that a habeas corpus petition is properly filed in a district court that has personal jurisdiction should have been dismissed due to a violation of § 3161(b) of over the petitioner’s immediate custodian, but declining to answer the question of whether an alien’s habeas corp us petition is also properly filed in a district court that has personal jurisdiction over the Attorney General).
discussed
Cited "see"
Haoud v. Ashcroft
See Goncalves v. Reno, 144 F.3d 110, 127 (1st Cir.1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1004 , 119 S.Ct. 1140 , 143 L.Ed.2d 208 (1999) (upholding judiciary’s role in determining whether an agency’s interpretation of a statute is permissible).
discussed
Cited "see"
Roman v. Ashcroft
The “Historically, the question of who is ‘the custodian,’ and “district directors have authority and responsibility to grant or therefore the appropriate respondent in a habeas suit, depends deny various applications or petitions submitted to the [INS], primarily on who has power over the petitioner and . . . on the to initiate any authorized proceeding in their district, and . . . convenience of the parties and the court.” Henderson v. INS, to issue notices to appear in removal proceedings.” Id.; see 8 157 F.3d 106 , 122 (2d Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1004 C.F.R. § 103.1…
cited
Cited "see"
Saint Fort v. Ashcroft
See generally Goncalves v. Reno, 144 F.3d 110 (1st Cir.1998), cert. denied 526 U.S. 1004 , 119 S.Ct. 1140 , 143 L.Ed.2d 208 (1999).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Diaz-Nin
See Goncalves v. Reno, 144 F.3d 110, 134 (1st Cir.1998) (holding that, after AEDPA and IIRIRA amendments, district courts retained jurisdiction to consider section 2241 habeas petitions filed by aliens seeking relief from deportation), ce rt. denied, 526 U.S. 1004 , 119 S.Ct. 1140 , 143 L.Ed.2d 208 (1999).
discussed
Cited "see"
Meyer v. Iowa Mold Tooling Co., Inc.
Co., 154 F.3d 875, 887 (8th Cir. *984 1998)); see Wallin v. Minnesota Dep’t of Corrections, 153 F.3d 681 , 688 (8th Cir.1998), ce rt. denied, 526 U.S. 1004 , 119 S.Ct. 1141 , 143 L.Ed.2d 209 (1999); Philipp v. ANR Freight Sys., Inc., 61 F.3d 669, 676 (8th Cir.1995).
cited
Cited "see"
Akhtar v. Reno
See Henderson v. I.N.S., 157 F.3d 106 , 112, 119-22 (2d Cir.1998) cert. denied 526 U.S. 1004 , 119 S.Ct. 1141 , 143 L.Ed.2d 209 (1999).
discussed
Cited "see"
Mahadeo v. Reno
(2×)
See id. 10 We gratefully acknowledge briefing from amicus curiae, professors from a number of law schools, on the constitutionality of construing IIRIRA to repeal the availability of § 2241 habeas jurisdiction for aliens petitioning for review of statutory and constitutional challenges to their removal proceedings. 11 Although the scope of § 242(g) was narrowed by a subsequent Supreme Court decision, see Reno v. American Arab Anti-Discrimination Comm., 525 U.S. 471, 482 (1999) (holding that by its own terms § 242(g) applied only to "three discrete actions"--a decision or action to (i) comme…
cited
Cited "see"
Demko v. Luzerne County Community College
See Wallin v. Minnesota Dept. of Corrections, 153 F.3d 681 , 690 n. 9 (8th Cir.1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1004 , 119 S.Ct. 1141 , 143 L.Ed.2d 209 (1999).
cited
Cited "see"
Calcano-Martinez v. Immigration & Naturalization Service
See Henderson v. INS, 157 F.3d 106, 122 (2d Cir.1998), cert, denied, Reno v. Navas, 526 U.S. 1004 , 119 S.Ct. 1141 , 143 L.Ed.2d 209 (1999).
discussed
Cited "see"
Deboris Calcano-Martinez v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, Sergio Madrid v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, Fazila Khan v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
See Henderson v. INS, 157 F.3d 106, 122 (2d Cir. 1998), cert. denied, Reno v. Navas, 526 U.S. 1004 (1999). 3 The three petitioners before us, Deboris Calcano-Martinez, Sergio Madrid, and Fazila Khan, are legal permanent residents of the United States who have been ordered deported because of prior criminal convictions.
cited
Cited "see"
Omosefunmi v. INS
See Goncalves v. Reno, 144 F.3d 110 (1st Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1004 (1999).
discussed
Cited "see"
Bury v. Reno
There has been some controversy over whether § 440(d) operates retroactively and applies to cases that were pending at the time AEDPA was enacted. 3 That controversy was resolved in this circuit by the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which concluded that “Congress did indeed express an intent that AEDPA’s amendment to INA § 212(c) should not apply to cases pending on the date of enactment.” Sandoval v. Reno, 166 F.3d 225, 242 (3d Cir.1999); accord Goncalves v. Reno, 144 F.3d 110, 133 (1st Cir.1998) (“A careful reading of the text of AEDPA, confirmed by the an examination of i…
cited
Cited "see"
Fitch v. Solipsys Corp.
See Wallin v. Minnesota Dept. of Corrections, 153 F.3d 681 (8th Cir.1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1004 , 119 S.Ct. 1141 , 143 L.Ed.2d 209 (1999).
discussed
Cited "see"
Zgombic v. Farquharson
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See Goncalves v. Reno, 144 F.3d 110, 128 (1st Cir.1998) (citing Mojica v. Reno, 970 F.Supp. 130, 178 (E.D.N.Y.1997)), ce rt. denied, 526 U.S. 1004 , 119 S.Ct. 1140 , 143 L.Ed.2d 208 (1999).
discussed
Cited "see"
Tasios v. Reno
See Goncalves v. Reno, 144 F.3d 110, 128-29 (1st Cir.1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1004 , 119 S.Ct. 1140 , 143 L.Ed.2d 208 (1999); Henderson v. INS, 157 F.3d 106, 129-30 (2d Cir.1998), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 119 S.Ct. 1141 , 143 L.Ed.2d 209 (1999); Sandoval v. Reno, 166 F.3d 225, 241-42 (3d Cir.1999); Pak v. Reno, 196 F.3d 666, 675-76 (6th Cir.1999); Mayers v. INS, 175 F.3d 1289, 1302-03 (11th Cir.1999).
cited
Cited "see"
Konstantinos Tasios v. Janet Reno
See Goncalves v. Reno, 144 F.3d 110, 128-29 (1st Cir. 1998), cert. denied , 526 U.S. 1004 , 119 S. Ct. 1140 , 143 L.
examined
Cited "see"
Pena-Rosario v. Reno
(3×)
See Henderson v. INS, 157 F.3d 106, 117 (2d Cir.1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1004 , 119 S.Ct. 1141 , 143 L.Ed.2d 209 (1999). *355 Although the INA specified that this court of appeals review was to be the “sole and exclusive procedure” for judicial review of final orders of deportation, old INA § 106, 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a), it also provided that “any alien held in custody pursuant to an order of deportation may obtain judicial review thereof by habeas corpus proceedings,” id., 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a)(10).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
RHJ Medical Center, Inc. v. City of DuBois
See Burch v. Coca-Cola Co., 119 F.3d 305, 316-17 (5th Cir.1997) (holding that alcoholism is not a per se disability under the ADA and evidence that alcoholics, in general, are impaired is inadequate to show the substantial limitation of one or more major life activities), ce rt. denied, 522 U.S. 1084 , 118 S.Ct. 871 , 139 L.Ed.2d 768 (1998); see also Wallin v. Minnesota Dep’t of Corrections, 153 F.3d 681 , 686 n. 4 (8th Cir.1998) (citing Burch and requiring that a plaintiff show impairment of a major life activity), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1004 , 119 S.Ct. 1141 , 143 L.Ed.2d 209 (1999); Buckl…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Kendall v. Immigration & Naturalization Service
As the Second Circuit has indicated, the INS might have "technical custody” prior to the assumption of physical custody, but only in cases where deportation proceedings have already resulted in "determinations of deporta-bility” and the detainers “require [_"] the deportees to be turned over to INS custody for deportation,” Waldron v. INS, 17 F.3d 511, 516 (2d Cir.1993), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1014 , 115 S.Ct. 572 , 130 L.Ed.2d 489 (1994); see also Henderson v. INS, 157 F.3d 106, 112-22 (2d Cir.1998) (discussing historical use of ha-beas corpus for review of certain statutory claims by…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Judicial Complaint, In Re:
Compare Henderson v. INS, 157 F.3d 106, 122-28 (2d Cir.1998) (declining to decide, but discussing whether Attorney General can be custodian), cert. denied sub nom Reno v. Navas, 526 U.S. 1004 , 119 S.Ct. 1141 , 143 L.Ed.2d 209 (1999); and Grodzki v. Reno, 950 F.Supp. 339, 342 (N.D.Ga.1996) (stating that venue was proper because the Attorney General is a custodian), with Yi v. Maugans, 24 F.3d 500, 507 (3d Cir.1994) (finding that the facility warden is the only proper custodian); Brittingham v. United States, 982 F.2d 378, 379-80 (9th Cir.1992) (holding that state prison warden was proper custo…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Judicial Complaint, In Re:
Compare Henderson v. INS, 157 F.3d 106, 122-28 (2d Cir. 1998) (declining to decide, but discussing whether Attorney General can be custodian), cert. denied sub nom Reno v. Navas, 526 U.S. 1004 , 119 S.Ct. 1141 (1999); and Grodzki v. Reno, 950 F. Supp. 339, 342 (N.D.Ga. 9 1996) (stating that venue was proper because the Attorney General is a custodian), with Yi v. Maugans, 24 F.3d 500, 507 (3d Cir. 1994) (finding that the facility warden is the only proper custodian); Brittingham v. United States, 982 F.2d 378, 379-80 (9th Cir. 1992) (holding that state prison warden was proper custodian and no…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Renaud v. Wyoming Department of Family Services
See Burch v. Coca-Cola Co., 119 F.3d 305, 316-17 (5th Cir.1997) (holding that alcoholism is not a per se disability under the ADA and evidence that alcoholics, in general, are impaired is inadequate to show the substantial limitation of one or more major life activities), ce rt. denied, 522 U.S. 1084 , 118 S.Ct. 871 , 139 L.Ed.2d 768 (1998); see also Wallin v. Minnesota Dep’t of Corrections, 153 F.3d 681 , 686 n. 4 (8th Cir.1998) (citing Burch and requiring that a plaintiff show impairment of a major life activity), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1004 , 119 S.Ct. 1141 , 143 L.Ed.2d 209 (1999); Buckl…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Rogowski v. Reno
Navas v. Reno, 526 U.S. 1004 , 119 S.Ct. 1141 , 143 L.Ed.2d 209 (1999); see also Goncalves v. Reno, 144 F.3d 110, 125 (1st Cir.1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1004 , 119 S.Ct. 1140 , 143 L.Ed.2d 208 (1999); Sandoval v. Reno, 166 F.3d 225, 234 (3d Cir.1999). “[Statutes are not ordinarily afforded retroactive effect unless 'Congress has clearly manifested its intent’ to have them so applied.” Henderson, 157 F.3d at 129 (quoting Hughes Aircraft Co. v. United States ex rel.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Hecla Mining Co.
v.
Washington Wilderness Coalition
v.
Washington Wilderness Coalition
No. 98-751.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Mar 8, 1999.
526 U.S. 1004
Published
C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.