United States v. Stencil’s Empirical Analysis
629 F.2d 984 · 1980
Citation profile
11
cited by 11 later decisions
September 2015
most recently cited
10 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 7 U.S.C. § 2024
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[Defendant argue[s] that because the undercover agent who sold him the food stamps was authorized to dispense them, the defendant’s acquisition and possession of the food stamps was likewise authorized.... We find [this] argument totally without merit .... In 7 U.S.C. § 2024 (a), Congress authorized the issuance or presentment of food stamps for enforcement purposes. In 7 U.S.C. § 2024 (b), Congress made the unauthorized acquisition of food stamps a crime. Obviously, Congress did not intend to exempt from criminal penalties anyone who acquired food stamps from an undercover agent. The fact that a seller is authorized to sell does not mean that the buyer must necessarily be cloaked with authority to buy.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.