Gutknecht v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
1970
Citation profile
384 federal appellate · 40 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 555 later decisions (17 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2007 · most notably Davis v. United States (1974), State v. Ramseur (1987)
384 federal appellate · 40 district · 8 state decisions
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. Gutknecht (from Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on United States v. United Mine Workers of America · McKart v. United States · Shillitani v. United States · Oestereich v. Selective Service System Local Board No. 11 · Kent v. Dulles
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 555 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“* * * a broad, roving authority, a type of administrative absolutism [is] not congenial to our law-making traditions.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““ * * * has failed to perform any duty or duties required of him under the selective service law other than the duty to comply with an Order to Report for Induction (SSS Form No. 252) or the duty to comply with an Order to Report for Civilian Work and Statement of Employer (SSS Form No. 153) * * *." 32 CFR § 1642.4 .”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““(2) Uncooperative. A registrant who refuses to comply with instructions, rules or procedures prescribed for registrant processing, or who refuses to take part in some, or all, of the prescribed processing, testing, or examinations will be informed that his refusal constitutes a felony under the provisions of the Military Selective Service Act of 1967. He will be further informed that convictions of such offense in civil pro ceedings will subject him to punishment by imprisonment for not more than 5 years, or a fine of not more than $10,000, or both. If he persists in his refusal, the following action will be taken: (a) If his conduct permits (e. g., if he is not engaging in physical or vocal activity which he will not refrain from doing in order to be reasoned with), he will be requested, but not required, to make a signed statement, dated, in his own handwriting, as follows (insert the phrase or phrases which pertain to him) : T refuse to comply with instructions, rules or procedures prescribed for registrant processing.’ T refuse to take part, or all, of the prescribed processing.’ T refuse' to take prescribed tests/examinations.’ Such statement should be witnessed by at least two witnesses who will affix their signatures to the statement. (b) His records will be returned to his local board. He will not be furnished any means of transportation. (c) Letter of refusal to cooperate will be prepared in quadruplicate. Content and distribution of the letter will be as prescribed”
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.