Snyder, Warden v. Rosales-Garcia, 539 U.S. 941 (2003). · Go Syfert
Search
Snyder, Warden v. Rosales-Garcia, 539 U.S. 941 (2003). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
57 citation events (57 in the last 25 years) across 12 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Savage & Associates, P.C. Ex Rel. Teligent, Inc. v. Mandl (nysb, 2008-01-03)
Treatment trajectory · 2003 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2003 2014 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Savage & Associates, P.C. Ex Rel. Teligent, Inc. v. Mandl
Bankr. S.D.N.Y. · 2008 · signal: accord · confidence high
However, “[j']udges are not pigs, hunting for truffles buried in briefs.” United States v. Dunkel, 927 F.2d 955, 956 (7th Cir.1991); accord Albrechtsen v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Wis. Sys., 309 F.3d 433, 436 (7th Cir.2002), cert. denied, 539 U.S. 941 , 123 S.Ct. 2606 , 156 L.Ed.2d 626 (2003).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Gilmore v. UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER STRONG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL DIVISION
W.D.N.Y. · 2005 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
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." Martinez-Pontifes v. Ashcroft
9th Cir. · 2005 · signal: see also · confidence low
See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 (a); see also Singh v. INS, 295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir.2002), cert. denied, 539 U.S. 941 , 123 S.Ct. 2605 , 156 L.Ed.2d 626 (2003) (internal quotations omitted) (stating that a the BIA has discretion to make decisions that are not “arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law”).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Kwai Fun Wong v. United States
9th Cir. · 2004 · signal: see also · confidence low
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." Kwai Fun Wong v. United States
9th Cir. · 2004 · signal: see also · confidence low
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 …
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Snyder, Warden
v.
Rosales-Garcia
02-1464.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jun 23, 2003.
539 U.S. 941
Published

539 U.S. 941

Snyder, Warden, et al.
v.
Rosales-Garcia et al.

No. 02-1464.

Supreme Court of United States.

June 23, 2003.

1

Appeal from the C. A. 6th Cir.

2

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 322 F. 3d 386.