Zearing v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 state decisions

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

1. ““It appears from the face of the discharge from draft and the allegations of the petition that petitioner was merely subject to military law and had an obligation to serve in the army from which he was relieved for proper reasons. It does not appear that he ever served in the army or was ever a part of the army. [Italics supplied.] A person may be subject to military law without being a member of the armed forces of the United States. (Bannister v. Soldiers’ Bonus Board, 43 R. I. 346, [ 112 Atl. 422 , 13 A. L. R. 589].) An honorable discharge is a formal and final judgment based by the government upon the military record of a member of its armed forces, and a declaration that such per son had left the service in a status of honor. (United States v. Kelly, 15 Wall. 34 , [ 21 L. Ed. 106 ].) There is no doubt that appellant was released from the obligation to perform active duty under honorable conditions, but in our opinion, this is not a release from active duty. The attorney-general of this state has ruled that a discharge from draft, such as the one in the instant case, is not an honorable discharge within the meaning of the constitutional provision (A.G.O. 7656, July 31, 1931), and we are of the same opinion. We concur in that part of the opinion of the attorney-general referred to, in which the attorney-general states: ‘From all of the foregoing it would seem to clearly appear that the physical examination, selecting, etc., by the Local Board, were tentative, conditional o”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Lamb v. Kroeger