In re J-P

25 Cited authorities

  1. Lindh v. Murphy

    521 U.S. 320 (1997)   Cited 11,196 times   29 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the statutory language must be "so clear that it [can] sustain only one interpretation" favoring retroactivity
  2. K Mart Corp. v. Cartier, Inc.

    486 U.S. 281 (1988)   Cited 808 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding a C.F.R. provision invalid because it conflicted with the unequivocal language of the statute
  3. Ungar v. Sarafite

    376 U.S. 575 (1964)   Cited 1,938 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"
  4. Mathews v. Diaz

    426 U.S. 67 (1976)   Cited 989 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that congressional alienage-based restrictions on federal Medicare benefits did not violate due process
  5. Landon v. Plasencia

    459 U.S. 21 (1982)   Cited 623 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that such aliens are entitled to protections of Due Process Clause in exclusion proceedings
  6. Radzanower v. Touche Ross Co.

    426 U.S. 148 (1976)   Cited 514 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”
  7. Coit Independence Joint Venture v. Federal Savings & Loan Insurance

    489 U.S. 561 (1989)   Cited 267 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
  8. Harisiades v. Shaughnessy

    342 U.S. 580 (1952)   Cited 577 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"
  9. Wong Yang Sung v. McGrath

    339 U.S. 33 (1950)   Cited 446 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Administrative Procedure Act required deportation hearings even though current INS regulations did not
  10. Bridges v. Wixon

    326 U.S. 135 (1945)   Cited 467 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding only that a court may not admit hearsay for substantive, as opposed to impeachment, purposes
  11. Section 1252 - Judicial review of orders of removal

    8 U.S.C. § 1252   Cited 43,410 times   40 Legal Analyses
    Holding court had no jurisdiction to review "any judgment regarding the granting of relief under section . . . 1229b"
  12. Section 1252b - Repealed

    8 U.S.C. § 1252b   Cited 398 times
    Stating that time-and-place information could be provided "in the order to show cause or otherwise"