In re Soriano

44 Cited authorities

Landgraf v. USI Film Prods.
511 U.S. 244 (1994) Cited 3,860 times 34 Legal Analyses
Holding that a statute may apply retroactively when "clear congressional intent favor such a result"
INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca
480 U.S. 421 (1987) Cited 2,405 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that the phrase "well-founded fear," which is also found in 8 U.S.C. § 1101, is ambiguous
Bowen v. Georgetown University Hospital
488 U.S. 204 (1988) Cited 1,732 times 10 Legal Analyses
Holding that courts will not defer to an agency's litigating position where it contradicts the agency's prior “regulations, rulings, or administrative practice”
Hutto v. Finney
437 U.S. 678 (1978) Cited 2,558 times
Holding that, in the context of institutional reform litigation, the district court's "exercise of discretion ... is entitled to special deference because of the trial judge's years of experience with the problem at hand"
Bradley v. Richmond School Board
416 U.S. 696 (1974) Cited 1,463 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that "an appellate court must apply the law in effect at the time it renders its decision," unless such application would work a manifest injustice or there is statutory direction or legislative history to the contrary
INS v. Lopez-Mendoza
468 U.S. 1032 (1984) Cited 990 times 17 Legal Analyses
Holding that "deportation is not to punish past transgressions but rather to put an end to a continuing violation of the immigration laws."
K Mart Corp. v. Cartier, Inc.
486 U.S. 281 (1988) Cited 805 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding a C.F.R. provision invalid because it conflicted with the unequivocal language of the statute
Kungys v. United States
485 U.S. 759 (1988) Cited 702 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that the government must meet its burden with "clear, unequivocal, and convincing" evidence
Colautti v. Franklin
439 U.S. 379 (1979) Cited 715 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding an abortion statute that imposed strict liability was impermissibly vague where it was "unclear whether the statute imports a purely subjective standard, or whether it imposes a mixed subjective and objective standard."
Hall v. Beals
396 U.S. 45 (1969) Cited 536 times
Holding that an amendment to the challenged statute eliminated any "controversy of the kind that must exist if we are to avoid advisory opinions"
Section 1182 - Inadmissible aliens
8 U.S.C. § 1182 Cited 9,893 times 69 Legal Analyses
Holding deportable aliens who have been convicted of "crimes involving moral turpitude"
Section 1251 - Transferred
8 U.S.C. § 1251 Cited 2,158 times 1 Legal Analyses
Delineating crimes that make alien deportable

In re Soriano

44 Cited authorities

Holding that a statute may apply retroactively when "clear congressional intent favor such a result"

Holding that the phrase "well-founded fear," which is also found in 8 U.S.C. § 1101, is ambiguous

Holding that courts will not defer to an agency's litigating position where it contradicts the agency's prior “regulations, rulings, or administrative practice”

Holding that, in the context of institutional reform litigation, the district court's "exercise of discretion ... is entitled to special deference because of the trial judge's years of experience with the problem at hand"

Holding that "an appellate court must apply the law in effect at the time it renders its decision," unless such application would work a manifest injustice or there is statutory direction or legislative history to the contrary

Holding that "deportation is not to punish past transgressions but rather to put an end to a continuing violation of the immigration laws."

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

Holding that the government must meet its burden with "clear, unequivocal, and convincing" evidence

Holding an abortion statute that imposed strict liability was impermissibly vague where it was "unclear whether the statute imports a purely subjective standard, or whether it imposes a mixed subjective and objective standard."

Holding that an amendment to the challenged statute eliminated any "controversy of the kind that must exist if we are to avoid advisory opinions"

Holding deportable aliens who have been convicted of "crimes involving moral turpitude"

Delineating crimes that make alien deportable