Frisby v. Larsen’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 1 district ·

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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The task of the Court in reviewing a denial of an in-service conscientious objector application is to determine (1) if the application stated a prima facie case for the status requested; (2) if the application was handled in a procedurally correct manner; (3) if legally adequate reasons were stated for the denial of the request; and (4) if there was a “basis in fact” supporting the reasons given. Frisby v. Larsen, 330 F.Supp. 545, 546 (N.D.Cal.1971). See, Hammond v. Lenfest, 398 F.2d 705 (2nd Cir. 1968); Bates v. Commander, First Coast Guard District, 413 F.2d 475 (1st Cir. 1969).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 392 F. Supp. 637 - Borkenhagen v. Laird

2. ““The written record tells us nothing of applicant’s demeanor, and shows nothing that is mechanical or rehearsed about petitioner’s expression of his own beliefs. See United States v. Jagla, 330 F.Supp. 962 (N.D.Cal. 1970); see also United States v. Newton, 435 F.2d 671 (9 Cir. 1970).” Frisby, 330 F.Supp. at 548 . 1”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Frisby v. Larsen