Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 756 F.2d 1153 - Alexander v. Robinson

Alexander v. Robinson’s Empirical Analysis

756 F.2d 1153 · 1985

Citation profile

23
cited by 23 later decisions
3
states following
October 2002
most recently cited

9 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently October 2002

9 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 state decisions

100198519902000decided

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 7 U.S.C. § 2012 · 7 U.S.C. § 2013 · 7 U.S.C. § 2020 · 7 U.S.C. § 2022

Relies on McGee v. International Life Insurance · Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Train · Board of Governors of Federal Reserve System v. First Lincolnwood Corporation · Rivera v. Becerra · United States v. Vanella

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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[w]e are persuaded that the state’s application of [the law] to appellants is a prospective one. The state is reducing current benefits to offset current debts of food stamp recipients. The reduction in current benefits was made after, ... the effective date of implementing Louisiana regulations. Such an application ... to valid indebtedness whenever incurred is a prospective application of the statute.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “"State agencies shall collect any claim against a household arising from the overissuance of coupons, other than ... claims arising from an error of the State agency, ...." (Emphasis added.)”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Retroactive application of laws is undesirable where advance notice of the change in the law would motivate a change in an individual's behavior or conduct.”
    1 later decision 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.