Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 413 F.2d 475 - Bates v. Commander, First Coast Guard District

Bates v. Commander, First Coast Guard District’s Empirical Analysis

413 F.2d 475 · 1969

Citation profile

99
cited by 99 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
January 2008
most recently cited

50 federal appellate · 29 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 99 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2008 · most notably Strait v. Laird (1972), Helwick v. Laird (1971)

50 federal appellate · 29 district ·

82019691970198019902000decided

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

Applies 50 U.S.C. § 3806

Relies on Estep v. United States · United States v. Seeger · Dickinson v. United States · Witmer v. United States · Cox 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 99 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““ * * * by holding that petitioner’s present claim is inconsistent with his prior voluntary enlistment, the Commandant puts him in a ‘hanged if he does, hanged if he doesn’t’ predicament. Under DOD Directive 1300.6 IY B2, conscientious objection will not be considered unless it arose after induction or enlistment. By the Commandant’s reasoning, therefore, petitioner’s claim cannot be considered if it arose prior to his enlistment and is evidence of insincerity if it arose afterwards. By the force of this logic, no member of the armed services could ever qualify as a conscientious objector.””
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““Nothing contained in this title * * shall be construed to require any person to be subject to combatant training and service who, by reason of religious training and belief, is conscientiously opposed to participation in war in any form. As used in this subsection, the term ‘religious training and belief’ does not include essentially political, sociological, or philosophical views, or a merely personal moral code. *• * #»”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[w]hatever the stage of development of petitioner's insight, it is of no consequence to this inquiry. It matters only that he sincerely believes that his convictions are religious in origin.”
    2 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.