Roodenko v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
147 F.2d 752 · 1944
Citation profile
22 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 1988 · most notably Hurtado v. United States (1973), Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Townley Engineering & Manufacturing Co. (1988)
22 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 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 · United States v. Macintosh · Selective Draft Law Cases · Southern Pac Co v. United States
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““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““It is not correct to say that appellant and those who believe as he does are exempt from the operation of the Act. They are subject to draft the same as one who has no scruples against serving his country in the armed forces, the only difference being that under the provisions of the Act they are excused from military service. The Act specifically provides that they may be drafted or ‘called up,’ if one prefers that term, to serve their country in work considered of national importance under civilian direction. * * * The proper maintenance of agriculture, civilian business, transportation, sanitation, health, and many other civilian activities are as essential to the successful prosecution of the war and as much a part of the war effort as the production of munitions of war and the arming and equipping of the military forces. The Act places the determination of what projects are of national importance with the President. Roodenko has no standing to challenge the exercise of this discretion by the President.””
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.