Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

United States Vs. Seeger

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Mar 08, 1965

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

38 entries 4 linked 34 unlinked
Show
  1. United States Vs. Rumely US Supreme Court · Mar 09, 1953
  2. United States Vs. Macintosh US Supreme Court · May 25, 1931
  3. Sherbert Vs. Verner US Supreme Court · Jun 17, 1963
  4. Crowell Vs. Benson US Supreme Court · Feb 23, 1932
  5. U.S. 163 (1965) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Seeger
    Search
  6. U.S. 163 (1965) United States v. Seeger
    Search
  7. j) Chief Justice Hughes, in his opinion in United States v. Macintosh
    Search
  8. opposed to combatant military service or to both combatant and noncombatant military service. ( See United States v. Berman
    Search
  9. these areas, the conviction of the individual has never been permitted to override that of the state. United States v. Macintosh
    Search
  10. In amending the 1940 Act, Congress adopted almost intact the language of Chief Justice Hughes in United States v. Macintosh
    Search
  11. in their religious tenets. Page 380 U. S. 177 3. The Government takes the position that, since Berman v. United
    Search
  12. views -- was taken directly from Berman. But, as we have noted, this same view was adhered to in United States v. Kauten
    Search
  13. The United States v. Kauten
    Search
  14. and Herman Berman v. United
    Search
  15. be given great weight. Recognition of this was implicit in this language, cited by the Berman court from State v. Amana
    Search
  16. Iowa at 315, 109 N.W. at 898, cited in Berman v. United
    Search
  17. of his concepts. But these are inquiries foreclosed to Government. As MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS stated in United States v. Ballard
    Search
  18. including the Federal Bureau of Investigation and hearing officers. Finally, we would point out that, in Estep v. United
    Search
  19. Together with No. 51, United States v. Jakobson
    Search
  20. on certiorari to the same court, and No. 29, Peter v. United
    Search
  21. See United States v. Kauten
    Search
  22. Berman v. United
    Search
  23. and that kind of discrimination, as we held in Sherbert v. Verner
    Search
  24. an invidious discrimination that would run afoul of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. See Bolling v. Sharpe
    Search
  25. Crowell v. Benson
    Search
  26. Ullmann v. United
    Search
  27. Ashwander v. TVA
    Search
  28. If he was an atheist, quite different problems would be presented. Cf. Torcaso v. Watkins
    Search
  29. U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Seeger
    Search
  30. See United States v. Berman
    Search
  31. United States v. Kauten
    Search
  32. State v. Amana
    Search
  33. Estep v. United
    Search
  34. United States v. Jakobson
    Search
  35. Peter v. United
    Search
  36. of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. See Bolling v. Sharpe
    Search
  37. Cf. Torcaso v. Watkins
    Search
  38. United States v. Ballard
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial