Frey v. Larsen’s Empirical Analysis
448 F.2d 811 · 1971
Citation profile
1 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Estep v. United States · Witmer v. United States · Gillette v. United States · Ehlert v. United States · Schlanger v. Seamans
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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Nevertheless, there are additional matters in the record which supply the minimal quantum of facts necessary to constitute a basis in fact. In his interview before the second hearing officer, Frey indicated that he might be willing to participate in a noncombatant role in a defensive war if this country was attacked. C.T. 104. The hearing officer could have fairly concluded that this admission was inconsistent with a present objection to participation in war in any form. See Gillette v. United States, supra, 401 U.S. at 439, 91 S.Ct. 828 [ 28 L.Ed.2d 168 ].” [Emphasis added.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Lewine v. Laird
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.