Heflin v. Sanford’s Empirical Analysis
142 F.2d 798 · 1944
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently May 1997 · most notably Holt v. Sarver (1970), United States v. Henderson (1950)
21 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions
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 Falbovs v. United States · Selective Draft Law Cases · Butler v. Perry
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The answer to appellant’s complaint lies in the broad principle that the Thirteenth Amendment has no application to a call for service made by one’s government according to law to meet a public need, just as a call for money in such a case is taxation and not confiscation of property. * * * “There can be no doubt whatever that Congress has the constitutional power to require appellant, an able-bodied man, to serve in the army, or in lieu of such service to perform other work of national importance. The Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery and involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime, but was never intended to limit the war powers of government or its right to exact by law public service from all to meet the public need.” 2”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““By virtue of the authority vested in me by the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940 (Bub. No. 783, 76th Cong.), it is hereby ordered as follows: “1. The Director of Selective Service, hereinafter called the Director, is authorized to establish, designate, or determine work of national importance under civilian direction to which may be assigned persons found under section 5(g) of the Selective Training and Service Act of 19 Í0 to be conscientiously opposed to participation in combatant and non-combatant training and service in the land or naval forces of the United States. “2. The Director shall make the necessary assignments to such work, shall determine the agencies, organizations, or individuals that may provide civilian direction thereof, and shall have general supervision and control over such work. “3. To the extent that he may deem necessary to carry out the provisions of this order, the Director may utilize the services of the Departments, officers, -and agents of the United States; accept the services of officers a.nd agents of the several states, territories, and the District of Columbia, and the subdivisions thereof; and accept voluntary services of private organizations and individuals; and may obtain, by purchase, loan, or gift, equipment and supplies from Federal and other public agencies and private organizations and individuals, with or without advertising or formal contract. “4. The Director is authorized to prescribe such rules and regulations as may ”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery and involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime, but was never intended to limit the war powers of government or its right to exact by law public service from all to meet the public need. (Emphasis added.) (Id. at 800.)”
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.