Shaffer v. Block’s Empirical Analysis
705 F.2d 805 · 1983
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently December 2020
7 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 20 U.S.C. § 1070 (Persian Gulf Conflict Higher Education Assistance Act) · 20 U.S.C. § 1070A · 20 U.S.C. § 1089 · 20 U.S.C. § 1091 · 20 U.S.C. § 1092 (Jeanne Clery Campus Safety Act) · 7 U.S.C. § 2012 · 7 U.S.C. § 2013 · 7 U.S.C. § 2014
Relies on Southeastern Community College v. Davis · Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Cenance · Thropp v. Bache Halsey Stuart Shields, Inc. · Spicer v. Commonwealth, Department of Public Welfare · Grove City College v. Bell
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We conclude that in order to meet the specifically earmarked requirement of 7 C.F.R. § 273.9 (c)(5)(iv), the grantor must somehow specifically designate grant funds for the education expenses defined in the food stamp regulations. In this case, we find that neither the affidavit nor the budget specifically designated Ms. Shaffer’s BEOG funds for qualified education expenses____ We reach this conclusion after examining and taking into account the affidavit, the college’s breakdown of expenses, the structure of the BEOG program, and most importantly the nature of the BEO grant.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Admittedly, the school was delegated the responsibility of determining the eligibility of applicants, calculating the amount of each recipient’s award, and paying the awards to the recipients, but each of these tasks was conducted in accordance with specific guidelines and directions imposed by the DOE. The college did not have any discretionary authority; it only carried out administrative functions directed by the DOE. The DOE regulations did not give Owens Technical Col lege the authority to restrict the student’s use of the BEOG funds.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“(5) Reimbursements for past or future expenses, to the extent they do not exceed actual expenses, and do not represent a gain or benefit to the household. Reimbursements for normal household living expenses such as rent or mortgage, personal clothing, or food eaten at home are a gain or benefit and, therefore, are not excluded. To be excluded, these payments must be provided specifically for an identified expense, other than normal living expenses, and used for the purpose intended____”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Waterflow v. Gallant
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.