Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 138 F.2d 312 - Ex parte Stanziale

Ex parte Stanziale’s Empirical Analysis

138 F.2d 312 · 1943

Citation profile

24
cited by 24 later decisions
July 1971
most recently cited

15 federal appellate · 3 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently July 1971

15 federal appellate · 3 district ·

1201943195019601970decided

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

Relies on Chin Yow v. United States · Bowles v. United States · United States v. Grieme · United States ex rel. Phillips v. Downer · Arbitman v. Woodside

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

  1. ““The task of classification of the nation’s manpower for service in its defense differs greatly from the ordinary administrative action affecting an individual or a group. It is country-wide in scope, it includes a large portion of the population and obviously its operation must be both smooth and swift if the public object is to be accomplished. The enemy will not wait for the process of litigation to determine who must and who may not fight. “The procedure under the Selective Service Act necessarily, then, differs from the usual administrative routine. There are no hearings of right where witnesses may be called and examined and cross-examined. There is no representation by counsel either on behalf of the registrant or the Local Board. Nor are findings of fact and conclusions of law made. There is no statutory provision for judicial review. The ‘administrative tribunal’, if the Local Draft Board may so be called, is not composed of experts, real or purported, but of citizens of the neighborhood in which their Board functions., In some cases it knows the registrants personally; in all cases it knows its own community. The analogy of the ancient jury of the vicinage suggests itself, composed of men of the neighborhood, who knew what was going on. Questionnaires answered by the registrant and supporting written statements present his status, from his point of view, to the Board. But these are not the sole determinants of his classification. Quotas that must be filled and the n”
    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.