United States v. Stone’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

13 federal appellate · 1 district ·

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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ * * * the classification of a registrant shall not be reopened after the local board has mailed to such registrant an Order to Report for Induction * * * unless the local board first specifically finds there has been a change in the registrant’s status resulting from circumstances over which the registrant had no control.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Haifley · United States v. Pacheco

2. ““A crystallization of beliefs in conscientious objection after the Order to Report for Induction has been mailed may constitute a change in status resulting from circumstances beyond a registrant’s control. In such a case the Board has a duty to reopen the classification. United States v. Maine, supra [10 Cir., 417 F.2d 951 ] at 953; Martinez v. United States, 10 Cir., 384 F.2d 50 , cert. denied 390 U.S. 1016 , 88 S.Ct. 1269 , 20 L.Ed.2d 166 ; and Keene v. United States, supra [10 Cir., 266 F.2d 378 , at 384]. When a claim of conscientious objection is made after the Order to Report, the Board must determine when the registrant’s belief matured. If they matured before the notice was sent, the classification may not be reopened. If they matured after that notice, the question is whether the beliefs qualify him for conscientious objector status. See United States v. Gearey, 2 Cir., 368 F.2d 144 , 150, 379 F.2d 915 , cert. denied 389 U.S. 959 , 88 S.Ct. 335 , 19 L.Ed.2d 368 .””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Long