Fleming v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
344 F.2d 912 · 1965
Citation profile
43 federal appellate · 10 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 73 later decisions — most recently May 1996 · most notably United States v. Haughton (1969), Hammond v. Lenfest (1968)
43 federal appellate · 10 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 50 U.S.C. § 3801 · 50 U.S.C. § 3806 · 50 U.S.C. § 3811
Relies on Estep v. United States · United States v. Seeger · Dickinson v. United States · Witmer 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 73 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““[T]he use by Congress of the words ‘merely personal’ seems to us to restrict the exception to a moral code which is not only personal but which is the sole basis for the registrant’s belief and is in no way related to a Supreme Being.” (Emphasis added)”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““1. Purpose. This regulation sets forth the policy, criteria, and procedures for disposition of military personnel who, by reason of religious training and belief, claim conscientious objection to participation in' war in any form. “2. Scope. This regulation applies equally to commissioned officers, warrant officers, and enlisted personnel in the active military service. “3. Policy, a. Consideration will be given to requests for separation based on bona fide conscientious objection to participation in war, in any form, when such objection develops subsequent to entry into the active military service. b. Federal courts have held that a claim to exemption from military service under Selective Service laws must be interposed prior to notice of induction, and failure to make timely claim for exemption constitutes waiver of the right to claim. However, claims based on conscientious objection growing out of experiences prior to entering military service, but which did not become fixed until entry into the service, will be considered. Requests for discharge after entering military service will not be accepted when— (1) Based solely on conscientious objection which existed, but which was not claimed prior to induction, enlistment, or entry on active duty or active duty for training. (2) Based solely on conscientious objection claimed and denied by the Selective Service prior to induction. (3) Based on essentially political, sociological, or philosophical views, or on a merely persona”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Pitcher v. Laird“'more by sociological and philosophical views than by religious beliefs or the dictates of a deity,'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Naill v. Alexander
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.