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.
6 canonical passages across 4 cases, quoted by 74 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 Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Cardoza-Fonseca.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Cardoza-Fonseca Anchor | green | “where congress includes particular language in one section of a statute but omits it in another section of the same act, it is generally presumed that congress acts intentionally and purposely in the disparate inclusion or exclusion.” | 58 |
| 2 | Holder v. Martinez Gutierrez | green | “we cannot read a silent statute as requiring (not merely allowing) imputation just because that rule would be family-friendly.” | 4 |
| 3 | United States v. Casasola | green | “we 'examine the validity of the bia's reasoning, its thoroughness, and overall persuasiveness,' and give it weight accordingly.” | 3 |
| 4 | Khan v. Holder | green | “followed the general rule of the charming betsy canon that 'an act of congress ought never to be construed to violate the law of nations, if any other possible construction remains.” | 3 |
| 5 | Khan v. Holder | green | “legitimate political violence.” | 3 |
| 6 | Khan v. Holder | green | “the statute also defines 'terrorist organization' broadly.” | 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.