Wallingford v. Bassett's Admr.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• acknowledging that “the Government may permanently disqualify a retailer on the basis of EBT data”
• finding that where plaintiffs proffered evidence “to support a plausible alternative explanation” for one transaction set, but failed to do so with regard to two other transaction sets, summary judgment in the government’s favor was warranted
• noting that, while the Second Circuit has not yet addressed this issue, district courts within the Circuit have held that plaintiffs bear the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the disqualification was invalid
• rejecting plaintiffs’ explanations that different family members come in 14 throughout the day and use the same card to make purchases
• noting that, although the Second Circuit has yet to address this issue, district courts within this circuit and other courts of appeals have held that plaintiffs bear the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the disqualification was invalid
• finding expert’s 22 years of experience in retailer compliance before the EBT program was implemented insufficient to qualify him as an expert in identifying EBT fraud

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).