McNary v. Haitian Centers Council, Inc.
Cases that cite this one
21 later published cases cite this decision.
- Cordova v. Johnson (District Court, W.D. Texas 1998)
- Adanandus v. Johnson (District Court, W.D. Texas 1996)
- James v. American International Recovery, Inc. (United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia 1992)
- Humberto Garcia v. Jose Castillo (5th Cir. 2011)
- Garcia v. Thaler (5th Cir. 2011)
- Narvaiz v. Johnson (5th Cir. 1998)
- In re Sapp (6th Cir. 1997)
- McQueen v. Patton (6th Cir. 1997)
- Fierro v. Gomez (9th Cir. 1996)
- Fierro v. Gomez (9th Cir. 1996)
- Adanandus v. Johnson (District Court, W.D. Texas 1996)
- Hai Hai Vuong v. Scott (5th Cir. 1995)
- Doe v. Abbott Laboratories (United States District Court Eastern District of Louisiana 1995)
- Harris v. Collins (5th Cir. 1993)
- Curtis Paul Harris v. James A. Collins, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice Institutional Division (5th Cir. 1993)
- Federal Deposit Insurance v. Gonzalez-Gorrondona (United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida 1993)
- Peppertree Apts., Ltd. v. Peppertree Apts. (Ala. 1993)
- United States v. Peppertree Apartments, City Court II Apartments, George Bailes, Jr. (11th Cir. 1992)
- King v. Tandy Corporation/Radio Shack (United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia 1992)
- Gilbert v. Milliken & Co. (United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia 1992)
- Muller v. Resolution Trust Corp. (United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia 1992)
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 of the Court
Application for stay of preliminary injunction, presented to Justice Thomas, and by him referred to the Court, granted, and it is ordered that the preliminary injunction entered on April 6, 1992, and clarified on April 15, 1992, by the United
Dissenting Opinion
dissenting.
I would deny the Government’s application to lift the injunction to the extent it applies to refugees who are and who remain screened in. Insofar as it prevents repatriation of those the Government determines may not remain, I would lift the injunction.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.