United States v. Crouch’s Empirical Analysis
415 F.2d 425 · 1969
Citation profile
9 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 50 U.S.C. § 3806 · 50 U.S.C. § 3811
Relies on Johnson v. Zerbst · Cantwell v. State of Connecticut · Sherbert v. Verner · McKart v. United States · West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““(a) The types of employment which may be considered * * * to be civilian work contributing to the maintenance of the national health, safety, or interest, and appropriate to be performed in lieu of induction into the armed forces by registrants who have been classified in Class 1-0 shall be limited to the following: “(2) Employment by a nonprofit organization, association or corporation which is primarily engaged either in a charitable activity conducted for the benefit of the general public or in carrying out a program for the improvement of the public health or welfare, including educational and scientific activities in support thereof, when such activity or program is not principally for the benefit of the members of such organization, association, or corporation, or for increas ing the membership thereof.” (Emphasis added.)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““There is no constitutional right to exemption from military service because of religious belief. This right comes from Congress. [Citation omitted] * * -X- * * * “A fortiori, there is no constitutional right to exemption from compulsory civilian duty in lieu of military service, for, as the Seventh Circuit has said, ‘Since it cannot be successfully argued that Congress lacks power to require military service of all, it has the lesser power to require of registrants who invoke the privilege of exemption by claiming a 1-0 classification, civilian work calculated to strengthen the nation in time of emergency.’ United States v. Hoepker, [7 Cir.], 1955, 223 F.2d 921, 923 . See also Elizarraraz v. United States, supra, 400 F.2d at 902 .””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““The District Court found, and we agree, that a showing of mere ownership and control of the hospital by the Baptist Convention was insufficient to establish that the work performed by the hospital was of a religious nature. The Government proved that the work of the hospital, a non-profit corporation, is to care for the sick and afflicted. The record is devoid of any evidence that the institution is secular in its operation. There is nothing in the record from which it may be inferred that the hospital staff members, employees or patients must be of the Baptist faith, nor is there any showing that the Baptist religion is practiced in the hospital or that religious worship is imposed on its patients or employees.””
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.