Adam Lopez-Mendoza v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, Elias Sandoval-Sanchez v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
Cases that cite this one
1 later published case cites this decision.
- Sandoval-Sanchez v. I.N.S (9th Cir. 1984)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
Adam LOPEZ-MENDOZA, Petitioner,
v.
IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.
Elias SANDOVAL-SANCHEZ, Petitioner,
v.
IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.
Nos. 79-7673, 80-7189.
United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.
July 27, 1984.
Mary L. Heen, American Civil Liberties Union, New York City, Douglas P. Haffer, San Francisco, Cal., for Mendoza.
John E. Huerta, Mexican American Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Los Angeles, Cal., for Sanchez.
Karen Morrisette, Washington, D.C., James P. Morris, Atty., Dept. of Justice, Margaret J. Perry, Washington, D.C., for respondent.
Before BROWNING, Chief Judge, WRIGHT, GOODWIN, WALLACE, HUG, FLETCHER, ALARCON, POOLE, CANBY, NORRIS and REINHARDT, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
By Order filed July 21, 1981, a majority of the full court ordered these cases reheard en banc pursuant to this Court's Rule 25. The previous three-judge panel assignments were withdrawn.
These cases were taken en banc solely to consider whether application of the exclusionary rule should be extended to deportation proceedings. Subsequently, the United States Supreme Court reversed the decision of the en banc court in an opinion dated July 5, 1984, --- U.S. ----, 104 S.Ct. 3479, 81 L.Ed.2d ---.
These cases are remanded to their respective three-judge panels for resolution in light of the opinion of the Supreme Court.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.