Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

De Canas Vs. Bica

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Feb 25, 1976

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

48 entries 8 linked 40 unlinked
Show
  1. Pennsylvania Vs. Nelson US Supreme Court · Apr 02, 1956
  2. Chy Lung Vs. Freeman US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1875
  3. San Diego Unions Vs. Garmon US Supreme Court · Apr 20, 1959
  4. Hines Vs. Davidowitz US Supreme Court · Jan 20, 1941
  5. Schwartz Vs. Texas US Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1952
  6. California Vs. Zook US Supreme Court · Apr 25, 1949
  7. Truax Vs. Raich US Supreme Court · Nov 01, 1915
  8. Sugarman Vs. Dougall US Supreme Court · Jun 25, 1973
  9. U.S. 351 (1976) U.S. Supreme Court De Canas v. Bica
    Search
  10. U.S. 351 (1976) De Canas v. Bica
    Search
  11. that result. Florida Lime & Avocado Growers v. Paul
    Search
  12. a). Hines v. Davidowitz
    Search
  13. Henderson v. Mayor
    Search
  14. Fong Yue Ting v. United
    Search
  15. and thus per se preempted by this constitutional power, whether latent or exercised. For example, Takahashi v. Fish
    Search
  16. Game Comm'n, 334 U. S. 410 , 334 U. S. 415 -422 (1948), and Graham v. Richardson
    Search
  17. of the cited cases, which generally arose under the Equal Protection Clause, e.g., Clarke v. Deckebach
    Search
  18. Graham v. Richardson
    Search
  19. a legal entrant may remain. Indeed, there would have been no need, in cases such as Graham, Takahashi, or Hines v. Davidowitz
    Search
  20. must nevertheless be invalidated under the Supremacy Clause. As we stated in Florida Lime & Avocado Growers v. Paul
    Search
  21. would justify that conclusion. Florida Lime & Avocado Growers v. Paul
    Search
  22. supra, at 373 U. S. 146 , quoting Rice v. Santa
    Search
  23. New York Dept. of Social Services v. Dublino
    Search
  24. and San Diego Unions v. Garmon
    Search
  25. U. S. 52 (1941), and Pennsylvania v. Nelson
    Search
  26. in enacting the INA. Hines v. Davidowitz
    Search
  27. Florida Lime & Avocado Growers v. Paul
    Search
  28. Dolores Canning Co. v. Howard
    Search
  29. a), however, relying, inter alia, on Guss v. Utah
    Search
  30. Labor Board, 353 U. S. 1 (1957), and San Diego Unions v. Garmon
    Search
  31. New York Dept. of Social Services v. Dublino
    Search
  32. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith v. Ware
    Search
  33. U. S. 117 , 414 U. S. 127 (1973), quoting Silver v. New
    Search
  34. regulation of their conduct before naturalization, and the terms and conditions of their naturalization. See Hines v. Davidowitz
    Search
  35. Takahashi v. Fish
    Search
  36. Game Comm'n, 334 U. S. 410 , 334 U. S. 419 (1948) (emphasis supplied). See also, e.g., Graham v. Richardson
    Search
  37. Sugarman v. Dougall
    Search
  38. preempted by the INA, the Court of Appeal cited Guss v. Utah
    Search
  39. App. 18a. Dolores Canning Co. v. Howard
    Search
  40. U.S. Supreme Court De Canas v. Bica
    Search
  41. and Graham v. Richardson
    Search
  42. Clarke v. Deckebach
    Search
  43. Rice v. Santa
    Search
  44. and Pennsylvania v. Nelson
    Search
  45. the INA. Hines v. Davidowitz
    Search
  46. Guss v. Utah
    Search
  47. Silver v. New
    Search
  48. See Hines v. Davidowitz
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial