Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Landon Vs. Plasencia

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Nov 15, 1982

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

65 entries 14 linked 51 unlinked
Show
  1. Kleindienst Vs. Mandel US Supreme Court · Jun 29, 1972
  2. Low Wah Suey Vs. Backus US Supreme Court · Jun 07, 1912
  3. Kwong Hai Chew Vs. Colding US Supreme Court · Feb 09, 1953
  4. Morrissey Vs. Brewer US Supreme Court · Jun 29, 1972
  5. Stanley Vs. Illinois US Supreme Court · Apr 03, 1972
  6. Leng May Ma Vs. Barber US Supreme Court · Jun 16, 1958
  7. Knauff Vs. Shaughnessy US Supreme Court · Dec 05, 1949
  8. Fiallo Vs. Bell US Supreme Court · Apr 26, 1977
  9. Wong Yang Sung Vs. Mcgrath US Supreme Court · Feb 20, 1950
  10. Rosenberg Vs. Fleuti US Supreme Court · Jun 17, 1963
  11. Mathews Vs. Eldridge US Supreme Court · Feb 24, 1976
  12. Bell Vs. Burson US Supreme Court · May 24, 1971
  13. Wolff Vs. Mcdonnell US Supreme Court · Jun 26, 1974
  14. Goldberg Vs. Kelly US Supreme Court · Mar 23, 1970
  15. U.S. 21 (1982) U.S. Supreme Court Landon v. Plasencia
    Search
  16. U.S. 21 (1982) Landon v. Plasencia
    Search
  17. of Rosenberg v. Fleuti
    Search
  18. if at all, only in deportation proceedings. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed. Plasencia v. Sureck
    Search
  19. deportation hearings and exclusion hearings. See generally Leng May Ma v. Barber
    Search
  20. States seeking admission. The two types of proceedings differ in a number of ways. See generally Maldonado-Sandoval v. INS
    Search
  21. of entry can be determined only in deportation proceedings reflects a misconception of our decisions. In Rosenberg v. Fleuti
    Search
  22. be determined in exclusion proceedings. For guidance on that decision, the Court of Appeals turned to Kwong Hai Chew v. Colding
    Search
  23. when the facts relevant to the determination of jurisdiction are also relevant to the merits. Thus, in United States v. Sing
    Search
  24. whether an applicant for admission was an alien or a citizen, although only aliens were subject to exclusion. Cf. Land v. Dollar
    Search
  25. for the power to admit or exclude aliens is a sovereign prerogative. See, e.g., United States ex rel. Knauff v. Shaughnessy
    Search
  26. Nishimura Ekiu v. United
    Search
  27. U. S. 651 , 142 U. S. 659 -660 (1892). Our recent decisions confirm that view. See, e.g., Fiallo v. Bell
    Search
  28. U. S. 753 (1972). As we explained in Johnson v Eisentrager
    Search
  29. resident alien is entitled to a fair hearing when threatened with deportation, see, e.g., United State ex rel. Tisi v. Tod
    Search
  30. permanent resident alien has a right to due process in such a situation. See, e.g., United States ex rel. Vajtauer v. Commissioner
    Search
  31. Wong Yang Sung v. McGrath
    Search
  32. U. S. 153 -154 (1945). The question of the procedures due a returning resident alien arose in Kwong Hai Chew v. Colding
    Search
  33. recognized constitutional rights in the resident alien returning from a brief trip abroad were dispelled by Rosenberg v. Fleuti
    Search
  34. U. S. 596 , to that of an alien continuously residing and physically present in the United States. In Shaughnessy v. United
    Search
  35. sufficiency of procedures provided in any situation, of course, varies with the circumstances. See, e.g., Lassiter v. Department
    Search
  36. Greenholtz v. Nebraska
    Search
  37. interest of the government in using the current procedures, rather than additional or different procedures. Mathews v. Eldridge
    Search
  38. right to rejoin her immediate family, a right that ranks high among the interests of the individual. See, e.g., Moore v. City
    Search
  39. Chew was entitled to a hearing at which the INS was the moving party and bore the burden of proof. Kwong Hai Chew v. Rogers
    Search
  40. found to be as apparent. Earlier judicial constructions of the term in the immigration laws, as set forth in Volpe v. Smith
    Search
  41. his return to the United States from a foreign country where he had no intent to leave the United States ( Di Pasquale v. Karnuth
    Search
  42. F.2d 878 (C.C.A.2d 1947)), or did not leave the country voluntarily ( Deladillo v. Carmichael
    Search
  43. Mullane v. Central
    Search
  44. Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U. S. 306 , 339 U. S. 313 (1950). See, e.g., Bell v. Burson
    Search
  45. in a manner adequate to apprise the individual of the basis for the government's proposed action. Wolff v. McDonnell
    Search
  46. Goldberg v. Kelly
    Search
  47. addressed in the briefs and at oral argument, there is no doubt that the Court may now decide the issue. See Vance v. Terrazas
    Search
  48. U.S. Supreme Court Landon v. Plasencia
    Search
  49. Plasencia v. Sureck
    Search
  50. Maldonado-Sandoval v. INS
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial