Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 813 F.2d 718 - Victorian v. Miller

Victorian v. Miller’s Empirical Analysis

813 F.2d 718 · 1987

Citation profile

45
cited by 45 later decisions
2
states following
December 2018
most recently cited

25 federal appellate · 7 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently December 2018 · most notably Baker v. Director, United States Parole Commission (1990), Stowell v. Ives (1992)

25 federal appellate · 7 district · 2 state decisions

2001987199020002010decided

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 42 U.S.C. § 1437A · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 7 U.S.C. § 2011 (Charitable Assistance and Food Bank Act of 1987) · 7 U.S.C. § 2015 · 7 U.S.C. § 2020

Relies on Cannon v. University of Chicago · Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill · Patsy v. Board of Regents of Fla. · Maine v. Thiboutot · Middlesex County Sewerage Authority v. National Sea Clammers Assn.

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

  1. “To establish an implied private right of action under a federal statute, a plaintiff bears the relatively heavy burden of demonstrating that Congress affirmatively contemplated private enforcement when it passed the relevant statute.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. “If the Secretary determines ... that in the administration of the food stamp program there is a failure by a State agency without good cause to comply with any of the provisions of this chapter ... the Secretary may refer the matter to the Attorney General with a request that injunctive relief be sought to require compliance forthwith by the State agency and ... appropriate injunctive relief shall issue, and, whether or not the Secretary refers such matter to the Attorney General, the Secretary shall proceed to withhold from the State such funds authorized under sections 2025(a), 2025(c), and 2025(g) of this title as the Secretary determines to be appropriate____”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  3. “The State plan of operation ... shall provide, among such other provisions as may be required by regulation — , for the granting of a fair hearing and a prompt determination thereafter to any household aggrieved by the action of the State agency under any provision of its plan of operation as it affects the participation of such household in the food stamp program____”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent

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.