Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
7 canonical passages across 7 cases, quoted by 25 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Marmolejo-Campos v. Holder.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Marmolejo-Campos v. Holder Anchor | green | “moral turpitude' is perhaps the quintessential example of an ambiguous phrase.” | 8 |
| 2 | Nunez v. Holder | green | “absent consistent or logical rules to follow as we determine whether a crime (other than one involving fraud) involves moral turpitude, our most useful guidance often comes from comparing the crime with others that we have previously deemed morally turpitudinous.” | 3 |
| 3 | Gabriel Almanza-Arenas v. Loretta E. Lynch | green | “a theft offense was not categorically a crime of moral turpitude if the statute of conviction is broad enough to criminalize a taking with intent to deprive the owner of his property only temporarily.” | 3 |
| 4 | Milton Rosales Rivera v. Loretta E. Lynch | green | “these two categories, however, are not exhaustive.” | 3 |
| 5 | Antonio Islas-Veloz v. Matthew Whitaker | green | “despite many years of trying, courts and administrators have not been able to establish coherent criteria” | 3 |
| 6 | Sandoval v. Sessions | green | “we owe no deference to the decision of the bia on divisibility and there is no reason to remand for the bia to decide the issue of divisibility in the first instance.” | 3 |
| 7 | Etumai Mtoched v. Loretta E. Lynch | green | “non-fraudulent cimts almost always involve an intent to harm someone, " mtoched v. lynch, 786 f.3d 1210, 1216 (9th cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted), or an "intent to injure, actual injury, or a protected class of victim,” | 2 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.