Scott v. Commanding Officer’s Empirical Analysis
431 F.2d 1132 · 1970
Citation profile
86 federal appellate · 6 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 119 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2011 · most notably Ehlert v. United States (1971), Fein v. Selective Serv. System Local Bd. No. 7 of Yonkers (1972)
86 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
Relies on Stovall v. Denno · United States v. Seeger · Desist v. United States · Welsh II v. United States · Byrne v. Karalexis
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 119 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ . . . the classification of a registrant shall not be reopened after the local board has mailed to such registrant an Order to Report for Induetion (SSS Form 252) or an Order to Report for Civilian Work and Statement of Employer (SSS Form 153) unless the local board first specifically finds there had been a change in the registrant’s status resulting from circumstances over which the registrant had no control.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““In any case where the board fails to disclose the basis for its decision, we risk blind endorsement of a mistake of law. Where it is clear that a prima facie case was established, we conclude that in conscientious objector cases, it is essential to the validity of an order to report that the board state its basis of decision and the reasons therefor, i. e., whether it has found the registrant incredible, or insincere, or of bad faith and why.” Scott, 431 F.2d at 1137 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“* * * * * -K“Why then did the board refuse to reopen his classification? We can only speculate. Perhaps, petitioner was evasive during his courtesy interview causing the board to conclude that he was insincere in his beliefs. Perhaps, the board believed him to be a sincere conscientious objector but disbelieved his account of post-induction-order crystallization. On the other hand, for all that we can tell from petitioner’s file the board was completely impressed with his credibility on all issues but denied his claim because of the erroneous view that his beliefs were not sufficiently ‘religious’ (see United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163 , 85 S.Ct. 850 , 13 L.Ed.2d 733 (1965); Welsh v. United States, 398 U.S. 333 , 90 S.Ct. 1792 , 26 L.Ed.2d 308 (1970)) or that beliefs are always within one’s control for purposes of the reopening regulation. We simply do not know.””
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.