Callison v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
413 F.2d 133 · 1969
Citation profile
19 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently March 1983 · most notably United States v. Christopher (1983), Sellers v. Regents of University (1970)
19 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 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.
Relationships
Relies on McKart v. United States · Cox v. State of Louisiana · Adderley v. Florida · United States v. Meyers
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Here the very process of induction was under way and those present were subject to the processing orders of the officers in charge. Even so, appellant was not prevented from engaging in orderly speech nor orderly registration of opposition or grievance. He was precluded only from efforts to incite and solicit others to join with him in an expression of opposition to the very process they were undergoing. The order was thus directly related to a valid and important government purpose; that of maintaining an orderly process of induction —one free from disruption or disruptive potential. Further, the rights of others were involved. It must be noted that this was not an open public gathering. * Appellant’s conduct was an intrusion upon persons met because their presence was required for a specific purpose. Appellant as an inductee had no greater right than any outsider to intrude himself upon those captively present by harangue upon any subject or solicitation for any purpose. Since any such intrusion is potentially offensive and since the gathering was Government compelled, the Government might decently feel a responsibility to maintain the gathering free from such intrusion. On balance we find the restriction imposed upon appellant’s rights by the order in question to be wholly reasonable.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““We hold * * * that appellant, by deliberately engaging in conduct that he knew would make induction impossible, was properly charged with refusal to submit to induction.” 413 F.2d at 135 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“essentially political, sociological or philosophical views or a merely personal code”
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.