United States v. Freeman’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

59 federal appellate · 7 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 91 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(a) upon the written request of the registrant * * * if such request is accompanied by written information presenting facts not considered when the registrant was classified, which, if true, would justify a change in the registrant’s classification * * *. [ 32 C.F.R. § 1625.2 .]”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Raymond · United States v. Reeves

2. ““A sincere claimant for conscientious objector status cannot turn to the habeas corpus remedy because his religious belief prevents him from accepting induction under any circumstances. As a result he is limited to seeking review in a criminal trial for refusal to submit. In this criminal proceeding, as in any proceeding reviewing a draft classification, his defense of invalid classification is tested by the ‘basis in fact’ formula. Under these circumstances conviction is almost inevitable, since the Board’s refusal to grant the conscientious objector classification is based on an inference as to the sincerity of the registrant’s belief and there will almost always be something in the record to support an inference of lack of sincerity.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Davis v. United States · United States v. Shaifer

3. ““The Fifth Circuit in Olvera v. United States, 223 F.2d 880 , held that a Local Board may not arbitrarily refuse to open a registrant’s classification where he presents new information which, if true, would require reclassification. The holding was based on the court’s view that the refusal to reopen denied a registrant his right of appeal and violated the ‘concepts of basic fairness which underlie all our legislation.’ Simmons v. United States, 348 U.S. 397, 405 , 75 S.Ct. 397, 402 , 99 L.Ed. 453 . We think the Olvera decision is correct because the procedural framework of the draft classification process and the narrowly limited judicial review available to draft registrants make adherence to procedural safeguards crucial to the maintenance of basic fairness.” 388 F.2d at 248 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Barker v. Hershey