United States v. Lemmens’s Empirical Analysis
430 F.2d 619 · 1970
Citation profile
52 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 71 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2005 · most notably Clay v. United States (1971), Fein v. Selective Serv. System Local Bd. No. 7 of Yonkers (1972)
52 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
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 · 50 U.S.C. § 3809
Relies on McKart v. United States · United States v. Seeger · Welsh II v. United States · Witmer v. United States · United States v. Haughton
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 71 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We are persuaded that where the validity of a classification rejecting a claim as conscientious objector is in issue, and where the registrant described a belief which on its face fulfilled the legal requirements, the board did not state its reason for rejection, and the court can not otherwise determine with any degree of assurance that the decision really made by the board properly supported the rejection and had a basis in fact, the court should hold the classification invalid. Id. at 624 .”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Because neither the Local Board nor the Appeal Board gave any reason for the denial of defendant’s claim, the Court cannot determine with any degree of assurance whether there was a proper basis for the decision. In such a case, where no reason has been assigned for the rejection of a conscientious objector claim, and where there is no objective evidence which in itself would justify denial of the claim, the Court is not permitted to speculate as to whether there may have been a proper reason for the Board’s decision. Id. at 1166 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““No judicial review shall be made of the classification of any registrant * * * except as a defense to a criminal prosecution * * * after the registrant has responded either affirmatively or negatively to an order to report for induction. * * * ” (Emphasis supplied.)”
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.