Town of Ithaca v. Hull

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a deferred adjudication under article 42.12, section 5(a) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure was a conviction for immigration purposes
• concluding that a deferred adjudication under Texas law was a “conviction” for immigration purposes, even though further appellate review remained possible, because “Congress has specifically explained that it intended to obviate the need to inquire into” such a possibility
• finding the specific defini- tion of a conviction now articulated in section 101(a)(48)(A) of the Act to supersede the prior federal standard for a conviction that we had developed in Matter of Ozkok, supra
• “[I]n the absence of a plain indication to the contrary, . . . it is to be assumed when Congress enacts a statute that it does not intend to make its application dependent on state law.” (quoting NLRB v. Nat. Gas Util. Dist., 402 U.S. 600, 603 (1971))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).