Skip to content
Try for free
Back to judgment

Citation network

Fernandez-vargas Vs. Gonzales

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jun 22, 2006

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
AI Brief & Ask Semantic Search Verdict Lens Devil's Bench DocMind
Start free trial See sample brief

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

40 entries 2 linked 38 unlinked
Show
  1. Lindh Vs. Murphy US Supreme Court · Apr 14, 1997
  2. ins Vs. Phinpathya US Supreme Court · Jan 10, 1984
  3. Syllabus October Term, 2005 Fernandez-Vargas V. Gonzales
    Search
  4. a)(5) barred his application and followed Landgraf v. USI
    Search
  5. Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Alito, JJ., joined. Stevens, J., filed a dissenting opinion. Fernandez-Vargas v. Gonzales
    Search
  6. Opinion of the Court Fernandez-Vargas V. Gonzales
    Search
  7. Supreme Court of the United States No. 04-1376 Humberto Fernandez-Vargas, Petitioner V. Alberto
    Search
  8. see Fernandez-Vargas v. Ashcroft
    Search
  9. s application and followed Landgraf v. USI
    Search
  10. the Propagation of the Gospel v. Wheeler
    Search
  11. see Martin v. Hadix
    Search
  12. in the current iteration shows that Congress no longer meant to cover preenactment reentrants. See Brewster v. Gage
    Search
  13. St. Cyr, 533 U. S., at 320 (quoting INS v. Cardoza&nbhyph
    Search
  14. s effective date, see Bejjani v. INS
    Search
  15. Castro-Cortez v. INS
    Search
  16. F. 3d 1037 (CA9 2001), while eight have held that it does, at least in some circumstances, see Arevalo v. Ashcroft
    Search
  17. Avila-Macias v. Ashcroft
    Search
  18. Velasquez-Gabriel v. Crocetti
    Search
  19. Ojeda-Terrazas v. Ashcroft
    Search
  20. Faiz-Mohammad v. Ashcroft
    Search
  21. Alvarez-Portillo v. Ashcroft
    Search
  22. Sarmiento Cisneros v. United
    Search
  23. regulates only a present removal process, not past primary conduct, citing our recent decision in Republic of Austria v. Altmann
    Search
  24. Pearsall v. Great
    Search
  25. amounted to a presumption of legal stasis for the benefit of continuous lawbreakers. Fernandez-Vargas v. Gonzales
    Search
  26. Stevens, J., Dissenting Fernandez-Vargas V. Gonzales
    Search
  27. traditional presumption against retroactivity, Landgraf v. USI
    Search
  28. see also INS v. Phinpathya
    Search
  29. proceedings, at which point he could raise his eligibility as an affirmative defense. Cf. Hughes Aircraft Co. v. United
    Search
  30. Landgraf v. USI
    Search
  31. Humberto Fernandez-Vargas, Petitioner V. Alberto
    Search
  32. Fernandez-Vargas v. Ashcroft
    Search
  33. the Propagation of the Gospel v. Wheeler
    Search
  34. Martin v. Hadix
    Search
  35. See Brewster v. Gage
    Search
  36. INS v. Cardoza&nbhyph
    Search
  37. Bejjani v. INS
    Search
  38. Arevalo v. Ashcroft
    Search
  39. Republic of Austria v. Altmann
    Search
  40. Cf. Hughes Aircraft Co. v. United
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial
1M+ judgments indexed

Brief any judgment in 18 sections.

Search Supreme Court, High Courts, and tribunals - then open an AI Brief on any result. Core search is free; full AI desk free for 7 days.

Start 7-day free trial - no card Talk to Sales