Clay v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
397 F.2d 901 · 1968
Citation profile
95 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 50 U.S.C. § 3801 · 50 U.S.C. § 3806 · 50 U.S.C. § 3809 · 50 U.S.C. § 3811 · 50 U.S.C. § 3814 · 5 U.S.C. § 1009
Relies on Baker v. Carr · Dombrowski v. Pfister · Estep v. United States · United States v. Seeger · Desist 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 130 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ * * * a draft board system which does not have a sufficiently representative number of Negro members [i. e., is improperly or illegally constituted] is comparable to a malapportioned legislature. The acts of such a legislature are not invalid and the laws which it passes are not null and void. The.acts of a malapportioned legislature or local or county commission or board are acts of a de facto political authority and valid despite their failure to be apportioned in accordance with Baker v. Carr * * * ” Clay v. United States, 397 F.2d 901, 911 (5th Cir. 1968), remanded on other grounds sub nom. Giordano v. United States, 394 U.S. 310 , 89 S.Ct. 1163 , 22 L.Ed.2d 297 (1969).”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““* * * The provision making the decisions of the local boards ‘final’ means to us that Congress chose not to give administrative action under this Act the customary scope of judicial review which obtains under other statutes. It means that the courts are not to weigh the evidence to determine whether the classification made by the local boards was justified. The decisions of the local boards made in conformity with the regulations are final even though they may be erroneous. The question of jurisdiction of the local board is reached only if there is no basis in fact for the classification which it gave the registrant.” (Emphasis added). 327 U.S. at 122 , 66 S.Ct. at 427 .”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“. . . No judicial review shall be made of the classification or processing of any registrant by local boards, appeal boards, or the President, except as a defense to a criminal prosecution . . . after the registrant has responded either affirmatively or negatively to an order to report for induction, or for civilian work in the case of a registrant determined to be opposed to participation in war in any form: Provided, That such review shall go to the question of the jurisdiction herein reserved to local boards, appeal boards, and the President only when there is no basis in fact for the classification assigned to such registrant. . . .”
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.