Williams v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

81 federal appellate · 4 district · 3 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 97 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The granting of a continuance is a matter of discretion with the court, and will not be reviewed upon appeal in the absence of abuse. Williams v. United States, 9 Cir., 203 F.2d 85 , 86; United States v. Vrilium Products Co., 7 Cir., 185 F.2d 3 . In the Williams case the court said: “ ‘The granting of a continuance is not a matter of right, but is always within the sound discretion of the court. Nor will the court’s exercise of its discretion be disturbed unless it is abused to the prejudice of the complaining party.’ ””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Sherman v. United States · Lemons v. United States

2. ““After intentionally refusing to conform to the order of the Board, the selectee may not challenge his classification in a criminal prosecution for his failing to do so since he also failed to pursue the appellate steps provided by the Selective Service Act.” Citing Falbo v. United States, 320 U.S. 549 , 64 S.Ct. 346 , 88 L.Ed. 305 .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Stain v. United States · 121 F. Supp. 171 - United States v. Dorn

3. ““Furthermore, as the Supreme Court pointed out in Estep v. United States, supra, the Selective Service Act requires a selectee to come to the brink of induction before he may obtain a judicial review of his classification. Congress, in setting up the-selective process, sought to avoid delays from premature litigious interruption. See Falbo v. United States, supra. Prior to the time when a selectee is found acceptable any injury resulting from the action of his Board has not materialized, since he might be rejected. But when the moment arrives to take the oath, administrative relief from injury to his constitutional rights is not available. He must then take the symbolic ‘one step forward’ which signifies that he has complied with all the steps in the selective process. Only then will judicial review of an alleged violation of a selectee’s constitutional rights by his Local Board be available. (The Falbo case cited.) Appellant did not comply with all the steps in the selective process. Therefore, he may not attack his classification or the Board’s procedure!’ (Emphasis supplied.) 2”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Bjorson v. United States