Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 220 F.2d 855 - Shepherd v. United States

Shepherd v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

220 F.2d 855 · 1955

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
December 1974
most recently cited

7 federal appellate · 1 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently December 1974

7 federal appellate · 1 district ·

40195519601970decided

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 Witmer v. United States · White v. United States · Tomlinson v. United States · Shepherd 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “We recognize the possibility that the appeal board’s action here may have been prompted solely by a consideration of the matters last referred to [the fact that the local board had made a classification after opportunity to observe the registrant’s demeanor and pass on his credibility] and that the appeal board may have disregarded the Department’s recommendation, or at any rate, that portion thereof containing the erroneous statement to which we have alluded. On the other hand, we cannot close our eyes to the strong probability that the appeal board, no doubt composed of laymen, would be much influenced by such a statement of the Department of Justice recommending that even if the registrant was sincere he could not be exempted because of his expressed beliefs relating to self defense and theocratic wars. ***** * We do not overlook the usual presumption that official action has been regularly performed. While it might be argued that in the absence of evidence one way or the other we must presume that the appeal board here disregarded the erroneous advice of the Department of Justice and relied exclusively upon the implied findings of the local board, that the registrant had failed to convince them of the genuineness of his religious convictions or of his sincerity, we find it difficult to be persuaded in this, a criminal case, that such a presumption is sufficient to negative the likelihood that the board in fact relied upon the erroneous advice of the Department of Justice.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Here, where it is impossible to determine on exactly which grounds the Appeal Board decided, the integrity of the Selective Service System demands, at least, that the Government not recommend illegal grounds.”
    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.