Meyer v. Lyng’s Empirical Analysis
859 F.2d 62 · 1988
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently August 2012
1 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions
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. § 2011 (Charitable Assistance and Food Bank Act of 1987) · 7 U.S.C. § 2014 · 7 U.S.C. § 2023
Relies on Shaffer v. Block · Biggs v. Lyng · Murray v. Lyng
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“7 U.S.C. Sec. 2014 (d)(1). The legislative history of this section reveals it was intended to cover in-kind benefits of meals, clothing, and shelter, which are administratively difficult if not impossible to assign a value to, as well as to so-called”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“as defined in the Food Stamp Act. 24 We thus must consider whether the proceeds fit within any of the specific statutory exclusions. At the outset, we reiterate that plaintiff does not argue the proceeds equal his cost of doing business, which is excluded from income under 7 U.S.C. Sec. 2014 (d)(9), nor does he allege they represent a reimbursement for expenses actually incurred which does not represent a gain to his household, excludable under Sec. 2104(d)(5). 25 Plaintiff does claim the proceeds fall within exclusion Sec. 2014(d)(1), which exempts”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Meyer v. Lyng“even though the proceeds were retained by FmHA. The district court certified a class consisting of all food stamp applicants or recipients who have been denied food stamps or who have had their food stamps reduced because defendants included as income the proceeds of two-party checks made payable to a household member and a third-party creditor when the proceeds of the check were retained by the creditor. 4 On the merits, the court upheld the Secretary's procedure for calculating income, holding that plaintiff's crop proceeds were”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Meyer v. Lyng
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.