Yaich v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
283 F.2d 613 · 1960
Citation profile
54 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 64 later decisions — most recently April 2009 · most notably United States v. Weiland (2005), Parrott v. United States (1966)
54 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 · 28 U.S.C. § 1733
Relies on Stern v. Board of Levee Commissioners · Phillips Chemical Co. v. Dumas Independent School District · Lovell Manufacturing Co. v. Etten · Pennsylvania v. Budd Co. · Union Oil Co. v. California
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 64 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ * * * as a general rule in prosecutions for violation of the Universal Military Training and Service Act, the selective service file of the delinquent registrant is admissible into evidence as a public document under the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C.A. § 1733 . Penor v. United States, 9 Cir., 1948, 167 F.2d 553 ; United States v. Ward, 2 Cir., 1949, 173 F.2d 628 ; United States v. Borisuk, 3 Cir., 1953, 206 F.2d 338 ; Kariakin v. United States, 9 Cir., 1958, 261 F.2d 263 . The challenged letter [contained within the file] * * *, if otherwise admissible, * * * would qualify as a public document and be admissible to prove the truth of the facts therein recited. Vanadium Corporation v. Fidelity & Deposit Co., 2 Cir., 1947, 159 F.2d 105 . The mere fact that a document qualified as a public record, however, does not ipso facto overcome the hearsay objection unless the document relates to an event to which the author of the document could himself testify. This is for the reason that the public documents exception to the hearsay rule is only the substitute for the appearance of the public official who made the record. Olender v. United States, 9 Cir., 1954, 210 F.2d 795 , 42 A.L.R.2d 736 .” Yaich v. United States, 283 F.2d 613, 616 (9th Cir. 1960).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““All registrants who have been determined to be fully qualified for induction in all respects were assembled. The Induction Officer informed them of the imminence of induction, quoting the following: ‘You are about to be inducted into the Armed Services of the United States, in the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, or the Marine Corps, as indicated by the service announced following your name when called. You will take one step forward as your name and service are called and such step will constitute your induction into the Armed Service indicated’. “When Mr. James Donald EDWARDS name and service were called, lie refused to step forward. He was removed quietly and courteously from the presence oí the group about to be inducted and processed as prescribed in paragraphs 36b and 40c, AR 601-270, dated 11 March 1960, as amended. “Mr. James Donald EDWARDS persisted in his refusal to submit to induction. He was informed that such refusal constitutes a felony under the provisions of the Universal Military-Training and Service Act, as amended. He was informed further that conviction of such an offense under civil proceedings will subject him to be punished by imprisonment for not more than five years, or a fine of not more than $10,000, or both. He was then informed again of the imminence of induction by the Induction Officer, who quoted the following: ‘You are about to be inducted into the Armed Services of the United States, in the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, or the Marine Corps, a”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““ * -» * The words ‘shall afford the defendant an opportunity to make a statement in Ms own behalf (emphasis added) seem to connote a different and more extensive procedure than exists when ‘a defendant’ moves, requests or acts, under the other rules. Cf. Fed.R.Crim.P. 15(a), 16, 17(b), 21(a), 21(b), 24 (b), 28, 29(a) and 31(d).””
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.