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.
2 canonical passages across 2 cases, quoted by 19 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 Frebert Bonhometre v. Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General of the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Frebert Bonhometre v. Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General of the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service Anchor | green | “an effort to streamline what the congress saw as uncertain and piecemeal review of orders of removal, divided between the district courts (habeas corpus) and the courts of appeals (petitions for review)” | 10 |
| 2 | Louis C. Ostrer v. United States | green | “a district court has inherent power to enter an order affecting the custody of a habeas petitioner who is properly before it contesting the legality of his custody.” | 9 |
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.