§
In re Villalba

51 Cited authorities

  1. Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Res. Def. Council

    467 U.S. 837 (1984)   Cited 16,218 times   616 Legal Analyses
    Holding that courts "must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress"

  2. Mathews v. Eldridge

    424 U.S. 319 (1976)   Cited 16,069 times   43 Legal Analyses
    Holding that federal procedural due process claims are subject to a balancing test, not heightened scrutiny

  3. Morrissey v. Brewer

    408 U.S. 471 (1972)   Cited 10,826 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that parolees "must have an opportunity to be heard and to show . . . that circumstances in mitigation suggest that the violation does not warrant revocation"

  4. Hewitt v. Helms

    459 U.S. 460 (1983)   Cited 5,302 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an inmate being considered for transfer to administrative segregation is entitled to "some notice of the charges against him and an opportunity to present his views to the prison official charged with deciding whether to transfer him to administrative segregation"

  5. Gagnon v. Scarpelli

    411 U.S. 778 (1973)   Cited 5,288 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that probation revocation is not a stage of criminal prosecution

  6. INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca

    480 U.S. 421 (1987)   Cited 2,410 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the phrase "well-founded fear," which is also found in 8 U.S.C. § 1101, is ambiguous

  7. Goldberg v. Kelly

    397 U.S. 254 (1970)   Cited 5,002 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that due process rights attach to the deprivation of Government benefits

  8. Russello v. United States

    464 U.S. 16 (1983)   Cited 2,128 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that where "Congress includes particular language in one section of a statute but omits it in another section of the same Act," courts presume that "Congress acts intentionally and purposely in the disparate inclusion or exclusion"

  9. Califano v. Yamasaki

    442 U.S. 682 (1979)   Cited 2,038 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Holding that claimants could bring social security class action "at least so long as the membership of the class is limited to those who meet the requirements of § 205(g)"

  10. Memphis Light, Gas Water Div. v. Craft

    436 U.S. 1 (1978)   Cited 1,357 times
    Holding that notice that a utility bill was overdue and that service would be disconnected unless payment was made by a certain date violated due process because it "[d]id not advise the customer of the availability of a procedure for protesting a proposed termination of utility service as unjustified"

  11. Section 1252 - Judicial review of orders of removal

    8 U.S.C. § 1252   Cited 43,281 times   37 Legal Analyses
    Holding court had no jurisdiction to review "any judgment regarding the granting of relief under section . . . 1229b"

  12. Section 1229a - Removal proceedings

    8 U.S.C. § 1229a   Cited 6,402 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Granting a noncitizen the right to file one motion to reopen and providing that “the motion to reopen shall be filed within 90 days of the date of entry of a final administrative order of removal”

  13. Section 1229 - Initiation of removal proceedings

    8 U.S.C. § 1229   Cited 1,373 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Authorizing service by mail

  14. Section 1252b - Repealed

    8 U.S.C. § 1252b   Cited 397 times
    Stating that time-and-place information could be provided "in the order to show cause or otherwise"