Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 444 F.2d 116 - Paul Robert Pasquier v. Curtis W. Tarr

Paul Robert Pasquier v. Curtis W. Tarr’s Empirical Analysis

444 F.2d 116 · 1971

Citation profile

24
cited by 24 later decisions
2
states following
February 1979
most recently cited

17 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Gregory v. Tarr · Gregory v. Hershey · 318 F. Supp. 1350 - Pasquier v. Tarr

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

  1. “collapsed, both for the parties and the members of the class, following its reversal by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Gregory v. Tarr, 6 Cir., 1971, 436 F.2d 513 .”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “* * * The deferment is provided by 32 CFR Sec. 1622.30(a), which states in part as follows: "(a) In Class III-A shall be placed any registrant who has a child or children with whom he maintains a bona fide family relationship in their home . . . except that a registrant who is classified in Class II-S after the date of enactment of the Military Selective Service Act of 1967 shall not be eligible for classification in Class III-A under the provisions of this paragraph. (Emphasis added.) "The Military Selective Service Act of 1967 was enacted June 30, 1967. On March 26, 1968, Blakely was classified II-S, as an Undergraduate Student, in which classification he remained until January 28, 1969. Demonstrably, Blakely is not entitled to the III-A fatherhood, or dependency classification, because he was classified II-S after the date of enactment of the Military Selective Service Act of 1967. "While it is true that 32 CFR Sec. 1622.30(b) provides a different type of deferment for registrants whose induction would result in extreme hardship to a wife or child, without any exception for those having previously held a student deferment, Blakely has not presented such a claim in this case.”
    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.