Koster v. Sharp’s Empirical Analysis
1969
Citation profile
1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 10 U.S.C. § 133 · 10 U.S.C. § 1552 · 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 50 U.S.C. § 3806
Relies on Everson v. Board of Education · Orloff v. Willoughby · United States v. Seeger · People of State of Illinois McCollum v. Board of Education of School Dist No 71 Champaign County Ill · Torcaso v. Watkins
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Nothing contained in this title * * shall be construed to require any person to be subject to combatant training and service who, by reason of religious training and belief, is conscientiously opposed to participation in war in any form. As used in this subsection, the term ‘religious training and belief’ does not include essentially political, sociological, or philosophical views, or a merely personal moral code. *• * #»”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Under the Everson test, [Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 , 67 S.Ct. 504 , 91 L.Ed. 711 (1947),] a regulation which makes exemption from military service dependent upon the applicant’s religious belief is, on its face, defective. Further, a standard which exempts a religiously motivated conscientious objector from military service and denies the same relief to a person whose beliefs are just as sincere but which are not motivated by any relationship to any religion is constitutionally defective under the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of due process of law. We concur in Judge Wyzanski’s assessment that ‘ * * * it is difficult to imagine any ground for a statutory distinction except religious prejudice.’ United States v. Sisson, supra, 297 F.Supp. at 911 .” [Brackets supplied.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““ * * * otherwise the only way someone in petitioner’s position could raise his constitutional claims of wrongful detention would be by first committing a military crime by disobeying an order and facing the possibility of imprisonment, as well as having to bear the stigma and attendant prejudices that attach to one dishonorably discharged from the armed forces. It should also be noted that the petitioner has no assurance that this route, if desired, would be available to him at all since the military authorities have the sole discretion to convene a court martial.””
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.