Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Nijhawan Vs. Holder

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jun 15, 2009

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

42 entries 1 linked 41 unlinked
Show
  1. ibp, Inc. Vs. Alvarez US Supreme Court · Nov 08, 2005
  2. Syllabus October Term, 2008 Nijhawan V. Holder
    Search
  3. interpretation rests upon Taylor v. United
    Search
  4. States , 495 U. S. 575 , Chambers v. United
    Search
  5. and James v. United
    Search
  6. and similar statutory structure in two adjoining provisions, it normally intends similar interpretations. IBP, Inc. v. Alvarez
    Search
  7. F. 3d 387, affirmed. Breyer, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. Nijhawan v. Holder
    Search
  8. Opinion of the Court Nijhawan V. Holder
    Search
  9. Supreme Court of the United States No. 08-495 Manoj Nijhawan, Petitioner V. Eric
    Search
  10. or more. See Taylor v. United
    Search
  11. statute or to the factual circumstances surrounding commission of the crime on a specific occasion. Compare Conteh v. Gonzales
    Search
  12. Arguelles-Olivares v. Mukasey
    Search
  13. F. 3d 171, 178 (CA5 2008) (same), with Dulal-Whiteway v. United
    Search
  14. Kawashima v. Mukasey
    Search
  15. Obasohan v. United
    Search
  16. engaged on a specific occasion, say, the fraud that the defendant planned and executed last month. See Chambers v. United
    Search
  17. interpretation rests upon Taylor, Chambers, and James v. United
    Search
  18. of the factual basis for the plea. Shepard v. United
    Search
  19. See, e.g. , Estrada-Espinoza v. Mukasey
    Search
  20. Singh v. Ashcroft
    Search
  21. Santos v. Gonzales
    Search
  22. See Gousse v. Ashcroft
    Search
  23. Fernandez v. Mukasey
    Search
  24. Steele v. Blackman
    Search
  25. and 2422 would be pointless. But see Gertsenshteyn v. United
    Search
  26. do not believe Congress would have intended (M)(i) to apply in so limited and so haphazard a manner. Cf. United States v. Hayes
    Search
  27. see, e.g. , Alaka v. Attorney
    Search
  28. Knutsen v. Gonzales
    Search
  29. Taylor v. United
    Search
  30. Chambers v. United
    Search
  31. Court. Nijhawan v. Holder
    Search
  32. Manoj Nijhawan, Petitioner V. Eric
    Search
  33. See Taylor v. United
    Search
  34. Compare Conteh v. Gonzales
    Search
  35. Dulal-Whiteway v. United
    Search
  36. See Chambers v. United
    Search
  37. Taylor, Chambers, and James v. United
    Search
  38. Shepard v. United
    Search
  39. Estrada-Espinoza v. Mukasey
    Search
  40. Gertsenshteyn v. United
    Search
  41. Cf. United States v. Hayes
    Search
  42. Alaka v. Attorney
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial