Lynch v. Lyng’s Empirical Analysis
872 F.2d 718 · 1989
Citation profile
16 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently September 2015 · most notably Bamidele v. Immigration & Naturalization Service (1996), Franklin Federal Savings Bank v. Director, Office of Thrift Supervision (1991)
16 federal appellate ·
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. § 2012
Relies on Blum v. Stenson · Consumer Product Safety Commission v. GTE Sylvania, Inc. · United States v. Turkette · Federal Election Commission v. Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee · Chemical Manufacturers Association v. Natural Resources Defense Council Inc
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“While there is something inherently illogical in the awarding of retroactive food stamps — one who has been denied basic subsistence for one year is not really made whole by being given one year’s worth of food in a lump sum at the end of the year — such a procedure is not at all foreign to the food stamp program. Retroactive benefits are frequently paid when benefits are improperly terminated for a period of time. More significantly, Secretary Lyng has given retroactive effect to many of the amendments contained in Title XV of the Act. See, e.g., 51 Fed.Reg. 28,196 (1986) (to be codified at 7 C.F.R. §§ 272.1 (g), 273.2(j)); 52 Fed.Reg. 5,434 (Feb. 23, 1987). While we agree with the Secretary that the fact that these amendments were given retroactive effect is not proof that section 1504 must be given retroactive effect, we note these regulations only to demonstrate that giving amendments retroactive effect is neither novel nor an anathema to the basic purposes of the food stamp program. Rather, the Secretary makes benefits retroactive when the demands of fairness require it.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. West v. Bowen“the amount of weight accorded an agency interpretation diminishes further when the interpretation does not require special knowledge within the agency's field of technical expertise”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The most basic tenet of statutory construction holds that courts are required, where possible, to give words their plain, unambiguous meaning.”
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.