Case Citator › Igor Borbot v. Warden Hudson County Correctional Facility

Igor Borbot v. Warden Hudson County Correctional Facility

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Good law
Court
Third Circuit
Citation
906 F.3d 274
Decided
Confirmed treatments
0
Flagged citations read
101 of 101
Citing cases (total)
165
Good law
Every flagged citation to this case has been read, and none of them overrules, limits, or questions it. Igor Borbot v. Warden Hudson County Correctional Facility remains good law: all 101 flagged citations have been read, with no adverse treatment confirmed. The reviewed opinions applied Borbot when distinguishing discretionary detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) from mandatory detention under § 1226(c), explaining that Jennings v. Rodriguez did not disturb Diop v. ICE/Homeland Security's constitutional holding, or discussing bond hearing procedures.
More on how this was screened

Hernandez Lara v. Lyons expressly found no conflict with Borbot: it said Borbot did not decide the issue before the First Circuit and doubted only a hypothetical reading of Borbot's “meaningful process” remark. The two Miranda v. Garland opinions also cited Borbot approvingly or distinguished its second-hearing claim from a challenge to an initial bond hearing.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

165 later cases cite Igor Borbot v. Warden Hudson County Correctional Facility; 101 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Igor Borbot v. Warden Hudson County Correctional Facility?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

No reviewed court has overruled or limited this case.

Every one of the 101 flagged citations was read, and each turned out to be something other than adverse treatment: a routine application, a party's argument the court rejected, or the case itself discussing older law. That reading is the finding this page exists to report.

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Igor Borbot v. Warden Hudson County Correctional Facility and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace