United States v. Abbott’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

46 federal appellate · 9 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 66 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ . . . A local board may find that an applicant lacks sincerity in his beliefs because his demeanor demonstrates a shiftiness or evasive attitude which would substantiate unreliability. Witmer v. United States, supra, 348 U.S. at 382 , 75 S.Ct. 392 , 99 L.Ed.2d 168 . However, this cannot serve as a basis-in-fact for an appeal board to reject a conscientious objector claim unless there exists some disclosure of this finding of unreliability by the local board on the applicant’s selective service record.””

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

2. ““ * * * when a registrant makes application at the time when his beliefs become ‘relevant’ to his classification, then lateness of the claim cannot affect the registrant’s sincerity. Abbott’s earlier presentation of his conscientious objector’s claim, like Bornemann’s, would not have resulted in his being classified as a conscientious objector since he was entitled to a deferment on the basis of a lower classification on other grounds.” 425 F.2d at 915 . 7”

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

3. ““Section 465(b) of 50 App. U.S.C., the statute in force at all times during the period when Bornemann’s classification was in question, provided that ‘[i]t shall be the duty of every registrant to keep his local board informed as to * * * changes in status as required by such rules and regulations as may be prescribed by the President.’ The applicable regulation, 32 C.F.R. § 1625.1 (b), requires that ‘[e]ach classified registrant * * * shall, within 10 days after it occurs, report to the local board in writing any fact that might result in the registrant being placed in a different classification * * In order to determine which facts ‘might result in the registrant being placed in a different classification,’ it is necessary to examine 32 C.F.R. § 1623.2 . This regulation specifies ‘that when grounds are established to place a registrant in one or more of the classes listed in the following table [which lists all classifications other than I-A (available for service)], the registrant shall be classified in the lowest class for which he is determined to be eligible.’ * * * Since these two regulations are to be read in pari materia, we are compelled to conclude that the facts which ‘might result in the registrant being placed in a different classification’ and which each registrant must therefore bring to the attention of his board promptly are those which could result in his being placed in a lower classification. Any other construction would mean that already busy boards woul”

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