Boyd v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
269 F.2d 607 · 1959
Citation profile
57 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 66 later decisions — most recently May 1973 · most notably United States v. Gearey (1966), United States v. Stoppelman (1969)
57 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3231 · 28 U.S.C. § 1291
Relies on Helvering v. Winmill · United States v. Nugent · Lovell Manufacturing Co. v. Etten · United States v. Zazove · Hartley v. Commissioner
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 66 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Insofar as due process is concerned, we are thus concerned only with determining whether the Board acted arbitrarily or reasonably in impliedly holding under the proviso of 32 C.F.R. § 1625.2 hereinabove quoted, that there was no ‘change in the registrant’s status resulting from circumstances over which the registrant had no control’. The-court below inferentially held the-Board acted reasonably and not arbitrarily, and we agree, although the sufficiency of the evidence before the Board is not a matter for judicial review. United States ex rel. Kotzen v. Local Exemption Board No. 157, D.C.S.D.N.Y.1918, 252 F. 245, 248 .””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““[T]he classification of a registrant shall not be reopened after the local board has mailed to such registrant * * * an Order to Report for Civilian Work * * * unless the local board first specifically finds that there has been a change in the registrant’s status resulting from circumstances over which the registrant has no control.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““ ‘There must be some end to the time 'when registrants can raise a claim of conscientious objection to induction and raise and re-raise an alleged right to review. Any other conclusion would result in chaos.’ Boyd v. United States, 9 Cir., 1959, 269 F.2d 607 , 612.””
2 later decisions 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.