Pitcher v. Laird’s Empirical Analysis
421 F.2d 1272 · 1970
Citation profile
33 federal appellate · 6 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 60 later decisions — most recently March 2006 · most notably Helwick v. Laird (1971), Silverthorne v. Laird (1972)
33 federal appellate · 6 district ·
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 10 U.S.C. § 133 · 10 U.S.C. § 1553
Relies on Estep v. United States · Orloff v. Willoughby · United States v. Seeger · Burns v. Wilson · Smith v. Resor
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 60 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In this case, Welsh’s conscientious objection to war was undeniably based in part on his perception of world politics. * * * We certainly do not think that § 6(j)’s exclusion of those persons with “essentially political, sociological, or philosophical views or a merely personal moral code” should be read to exclude those who hold strong beliefs about our domestic and foreign affairs or even those whose conscientious objection to participation in all wars is founded to a substantial extent upon considerations of public policy.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In re Bianchi““Federal courts have held that a claim to exemption from military service under Selective Service laws must be interposed prior to notice of induction, and failure to make timely claim for exemption constitutes waiver of the right to claim. However, claims based on conscientious objection growing out of experiences prior to entering military service, but which did not become fixed until entry into the service, will be considered.” (Emphasis supplied).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Our reluctance to review discretionary military orders, however, does not imply that any action by the Army is beyond the reach of this Court. Once regulations have been provided, . . . the Army cannot apply them in an arbitrary or capricious manner.”
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.