Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 794 F.2d 1273 - Haskins v. Stanton

Haskins v. Stanton’s Empirical Analysis

794 F.2d 1273 · 1986

Citation profile

35
cited by 35 later decisions
3
states following
September 2024
most recently cited

9 federal appellate · 5 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently September 2024 · most notably Cronen v. Texas Department of Human Services (1992), Victorian v. Miller (1987)

9 federal appellate · 5 district · 3 state decisions

16019861990200020102020decided

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 28 U.S.C. § 636 · 7 U.S.C. § 2011 (Charitable Assistance and Food Bank Act of 1987) · 7 U.S.C. § 2025

Relies on Edelman v. Jordan · Goldberg v. Kelly · Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman · Cort v. Ash · Smith v. Miller

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

  1. “Because the defendants are required to comply with the Food Stamp Act under the terms of the Act, we do not see how enforcing compliance imposes any burden on them. The Act itself imposes the burden; this injunction merely seeks to prevent the defendants from shirking their responsibilities under it.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[t]here is ... doubtless a point at which any failure of total compliance is truly de minimis , where the state has come to comply 'as strictly as is humanly possible.' " Withrow , 942 F.2d at 1388 ; see also Haskins , 794 F.2d at 1277 ("As with any program of this size, a few inadvertent errors are inevitable, and we are confident that the district court will not exercise its equitable powers to hold the state in contempt for every minor, inadvertent infraction of the Act if the court is satisfied that the officials are complying with the Act as strictly as is humanly possible.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “literally requires strict compliance with its provisions.”
    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.