Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 346 U.S. 1 - United States v. Nugent

United States v. Nugent’s Empirical Analysis

1953

Citation profile

611
cited by 611 later decisions
20
cited 20 times by the Supreme Court
8
states following
February 2020
most recently cited

446 federal appellate · 38 district · 24 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 611 later decisions (20 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2020 · most notably Greene v. McElroy (1959), Rostker v. Goldberg (1981)

446 federal appellate · 38 district · 24 state decisions

295019531960197019801990200020102020decided

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.

Appellate journey

reviewedUnited States v. Nugent (from Second Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on Williams v. People of State of New York · Estep v. United States · Norwegian Nitrogen Products Co. v. United States · Falbovs v. United States · Cox 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 611 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““Nothing contained in this title [sections 451-454 and 455 — 471 of this Appendix] shall be construed to require any person to be subject to combatant training and service in the armed forces of the United States who, by reason of religious training and belief, is conscientiously opposed to participation in war in any form. Religious training and belief in this connection means an individual’s belief in a relation to a Supreme Being involving duties superior to those arising from any human relation, but does not include essentially political, sociological, or philosophical views or a merely personal moral code. * * * * * “Any person claiming exemption from combatant training and service because of such conscientious objections shall, if such claim is not sustained by the local board, be entitled to an appeal to the appropriate appeal board. Upon the filing of such appeal, the appeal board shall refer any such claim to the Department of Justice for inquiry and hearing. The Department of Justice, after appropriate inquiry, shall hold a hearing with respect to the character and good faith of the objections of the person concerned, and such person shall be notified of the time and place of such hearing. The Department of Justice shall, after such hearing, * * * [make an appropriate recommendation to the appeal board] * * *. The appeal board shall, in making its decision, give consideration to, but shall not be bound to follow, the recommendation of the Department of Justice toget”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. ““ * * * the statutory scheme for review, within the selective service system, of exemption claimed by conscientious objectors entitles them to no guarantee that the F.B.I. reports must be produced for their inspection. We think the Department of Justice satisfies its duties under § 6(j) when it accords a fair opportunity to the registrant to speak his piece before an impartial hearing officer; when it permits him to produce all relevant evidence in his own behalf and at the same time supplies him with a fair résumé of any adverse evidence in the investigation report.””
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““The Department of Justice takes no action which is decisive. Its duty is to advise, to render an auxiliary service to the appeal board in this difficult class of eases. Congress was wider no compulsion to supply this auxiliary service■ — -to provide for a more exhaustive processing of a conscientious objector’s appeal ***** “The Selective Service Act is a comprehensive statute designed to provide an orderly, efficient and fair procedure to marshal the available manpower of the country, to impose a common obligation of military service on all physically fit young men. It is a valid exercise of the war power. It is calculated to function — it functions today — in times of peril. Even so, Congress took care to provide special treatment for those who could not reconcile participation in the defense effort with their religious beliefs — if those beliefs were a matter of sincere conviction.” (Emphasis added)”
    3 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.