In re J-P

25 Cited authorities

Lindh v. Murphy
521 U.S. 320 (1997) Cited 11,077 times 29 Legal Analyses
Holding that the statutory language must be "so clear that it [can] sustain only one interpretation" favoring retroactivity
K Mart Corp. v. Cartier, Inc.
486 U.S. 281 (1988) Cited 794 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding a C.F.R. provision invalid because it conflicted with the unequivocal language of the statute
Ungar v. Sarafite
376 U.S. 575 (1964) Cited 1,910 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that court committed no constitutional violation in denying one-week continuance request for counsel to prepare because, in part, the defendant (who was a lawyer) sought relief on "the day of the scheduled hearing" and was "familiar with the court's practice of not granting adjournments"
Mathews v. Diaz
426 U.S. 67 (1976) Cited 974 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that congressional alienage-based restrictions on federal Medicare benefits did not violate due process
Landon v. Plasencia
459 U.S. 21 (1982) Cited 614 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that such aliens are entitled to protections of Due Process Clause in exclusion proceedings
Radzanower v. Touche Ross Co.
426 U.S. 148 (1976) Cited 509 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding § 78aa did not supersede narrower venue provision in National Bank Act and rejecting amicus SEC's suggestion § 78aa should apply nonetheless to facilitate consolidation of litigation as a “policy argument ... more appropriately addressed to Congress”
Coit Independence Joint Venture v. Federal Savings & Loan Insurance
489 U.S. 561 (1989) Cited 265 times
Holding that creditors were not required to exhaust the Federal Home Loan Bank Board's administrative claims procedure before bringing suit against a federal bank
Harisiades v. Shaughnessy
342 U.S. 580 (1952) Cited 562 times
Holding that the Ex Post Facto Clause does not apply to deportation orders because "[d]eportation, however severe its consequences, has been consistently classified as a civil rather than a criminal procedure"
Wong Yang Sung v. McGrath
339 U.S. 33 (1950) Cited 443 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that Administrative Procedure Act required deportation hearings even though current INS regulations did not
Bridges v. Wixon
326 U.S. 135 (1945) Cited 461 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding only that a court may not admit hearsay for substantive, as opposed to impeachment, purposes
Section 1252 - Judicial review of orders of removal
8 U.S.C. § 1252 Cited 42,720 times 36 Legal Analyses
Holding court had no jurisdiction to review "any judgment regarding the granting of relief under section . . . 1229b"
Section 1252b - Repealed
8 U.S.C. § 1252b Cited 395 times
Stating that time-and-place information could be provided "in the order to show cause or otherwise"

In re J-P

25 Cited authorities

Holding that the statutory language must be "so clear that it [can] sustain only one interpretation" favoring retroactivity

Holding a C.F.R. provision invalid because it conflicted with the unequivocal language of the statute

Holding that court committed no constitutional violation in denying one-week continuance request for counsel to prepare because, in part, the defendant (who was a lawyer) sought relief on "the day of the scheduled hearing" and was "familiar with the court's practice of not granting adjournments"

Holding that congressional alienage-based restrictions on federal Medicare benefits did not violate due process

Holding that such aliens are entitled to protections of Due Process Clause in exclusion proceedings

Holding § 78aa did not supersede narrower venue provision in National Bank Act and rejecting amicus SEC's suggestion § 78aa should apply nonetheless to facilitate consolidation of litigation as a “policy argument ... more appropriately addressed to Congress”

Holding that creditors were not required to exhaust the Federal Home Loan Bank Board's administrative claims procedure before bringing suit against a federal bank

Holding that the Ex Post Facto Clause does not apply to deportation orders because "[d]eportation, however severe its consequences, has been consistently classified as a civil rather than a criminal procedure"

Holding that Administrative Procedure Act required deportation hearings even though current INS regulations did not

Holding only that a court may not admit hearsay for substantive, as opposed to impeachment, purposes

Holding court had no jurisdiction to review "any judgment regarding the granting of relief under section . . . 1229b"

Stating that time-and-place information could be provided "in the order to show cause or otherwise"