United States v. Stephens’s Empirical Analysis
445 F.2d 192 · 1971
Citation profile
17 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 50 U.S.C. § 3806 · 50 U.S.C. § 3811
Relies on McKart v. United States · United States v. Seeger · Welsh II v. United States · Mulloy v. United States · Sicurella v. United States
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Because conscientious objector status may be grounded in highly sophisticated beliefs, is extremely subjective in nature, and may, at times, be most difficult to demonstrate by objective standards, the requirement of a statement of reasons serves the dual purpose of affording a modicum of protection to the registrant and of providing a framework for intelligent administrative and judicial review of the board’s decision.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Few would quarrel, we think, with the proposition that in no field of human endeavor has the tool of language proved so inadequate in the communication of ideas as it has in dealing with the fundamental questions of man's predicament in life, in death or in final judgment and retribution.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The fact that the board reopened his classification following his personal appearance suggests that they may have felt that a prima facie case had been presented.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Cale v. Volatile
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.