Briggs v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
397 F.2d 370 · 1968
Citation profile
68 federal appellate · 4 district ·
Relationships
Applies 50 U.S.C. § 3811
Relies on Estep v. United States · Local Union No. 12 v. National Labor Relations Board · Falbovs v. United States · Gibson v. United States · United States v. Gearey
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 85 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““An analogy drawn from exhaustion of administrative remedies cases indicates that the denial of a physical inspection should be held prejudicial. . If a registrant does not avail himself of the opportunity to fail a physical examination which might change his classification, he cannot contest the validity of an order to report on the basis that he was wrongly classified. . . . This same factor, the possibility of rejection and reclassification, indicates that denial of a physical inspection to appellant was prejudicial. In the exhaustion of administrative remedies cases, this possibility is deemed sufficiently important to justify refusal to consider a registrant’s claims of error. It appears reasonable that this possibility be deemed equally important when the military disregards the requirements of a physical inspection.” Id, at 374.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The local board may reopen and consider anew the classification of a registrant * * * upon the written request of the registrant * * * if such request is accompanied by written information presenting facts not considered when a registrant was classified which, if true, would justify a change in the registrant’s classification ; * * * provided * * * the classification of a registrant shall not be reopened after the local board has mailed to such registrant an order to report for induction * * * unless the local board first specifically finds that there has been a change in the registrant’s status resulting from circumstances over which the registrant had no control.” (Emphasis added.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Registrants or applicants for induction or enlistment, who have undergone a medical examination of 'the prescribed scope within 180 days prior to the induction processing and have been found medically qualified, will undergo a physical inspection.”
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.