Justices Kagan and Scalia Talk about Sheetz and 7-Eleven

June 23rd, 2014

Sheetz is my favorite convenience store of all time (Bucc-ees is a close second). I am enthused to learn that Justice Scalia is a fan of Sheetz! From his opinion in Loughrin v. United States:

Suppose I resolve to purchase (with the two dollars in my billfold) a coffee at the first convenience store I pass on my way to work. I am indifferent to what store that might be. I catch sight of a 7-Eleven, pull in, and, with my cash, buy the drink. That it is a 7-Eleven coffee rather than a Sheetz coffee is “wholly fortuitous,” ibid. Still, no one would say that I had not obtained 7-Eleven coffee by means of my two dollars. So too with the handbag swindler: Regardless of whether the cash is the victim’s or, technically, the bank’s, and regard- less of whether the swindler cared which it was, would we not say that the fraudster has obtained it by means of the trick?

And Sheetz gets a shoutout in Justice Kagan’s majority opinion!

To illustrate the point, he offers an example: Someone “ob- tain[s] 7-Eleven coffee by means of [his] two dollars” even if he went to 7-Eleven rather than Sheetz only because it happened to be the closest. Post, at 3.

Sheetz run at One First Street.

slot mpo slot gacor 2025 slot gacor w168mpo mpo slot slot depo 10k slot gacor w168mpo W168MPO slot gacor w168mpo slot online w168mpo