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.
3 canonical passages across 3 cases, quoted by 10 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 Angela Rosario v. State.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Angela Rosario v. State Anchor | green | “a negative impact on the possibility of avoiding removal or being able to reenter.” | 4 |
| 2 | People v. Arendtsz | green | “there is nothing in padilla . . . that compels a trial court to specifically advise on asylum or cancellation of removal.” | 3 |
| 3 | State v. Sanmartin Prado | green | “in general, the new mexico standard is a higher standard than that in padilla.” | 3 |
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.