Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Clay Vs. United States

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jun 28, 1971

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

65 entries 2 linked 63 unlinked
Show
  1. United States Vs. Seeger US Supreme Court · Mar 08, 1965
  2. Negre Vs. Larsen US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1969
  3. Clay v. United
    Search
  4. States - 403 U.S. 698 (1971) U.S. Supreme Court Clay v. United
    Search
  5. States, 403 U.S. 698 (1971) Clay v. United
    Search
  6. offered in the Justice Department's letter that board relied, petitioner's conviction must be reversed. Sicurella v. United
    Search
  7. must satisfy three basic tests. He must show that he is conscientiously opposed to war in any form. Gillette v. United
    Search
  8. opposition is based upon religious training and belief, as the term has been construed in our decisions. United States v. Seeger
    Search
  9. Welsh v. United
    Search
  10. States, 398 U. S. 333 . And he must show that this objection is sincere. Witmer v. United
    Search
  11. not with its own interpretation of the dogma of the religious sect, if any, to which he may belong. United States v. Seeger
    Search
  12. Gillette v. United
    Search
  13. Williams v. United
    Search
  14. Estep v. United
    Search
  15. but is only selectively opposed to certain wars. See Gillette v. United
    Search
  16. U. S. 702 in war in any form can support an exemption as a conscientious objector under the Act. United States v. Kauten
    Search
  17. where, as here, his conscientious objector claim was not asserted until military service became imminent. Campbell v. United
    Search
  18. States, 221 F.2d 454. United States v. Corliss
    Search
  19. as defined in United States v. Seeger
    Search
  20. substantial part from his devotion to Allah as the Supreme Being. Thus, under this Court's decision in United States v. Seeger
    Search
  21. surely no less religiously based than those of the three registrants before this Court in Seeger. See also Welsh v. United
    Search
  22. it should disregard this finding simply because of the circumstances and timing of the petitioner's claim. See Ehlert v. United
    Search
  23. Lehman v. Laird
    Search
  24. United States v. Abbott
    Search
  25. Tobias v. Laird
    Search
  26. Cohen v. Laird
    Search
  27. sincerely held. This case, therefore, falls squarely within the four corners of this Court's decision in Sicurella v. United
    Search
  28. was hardly new. It was long ago established as essential to the administration of criminal justice. Stromberg v. California
    Search
  29. Service law goes back at least to 1945, and Judge Learned Hand's opinion for the Second Circuit in United States v. Cain
    Search
  30. by the federal courts in dealing with the criminal sanctions of the selective service laws. See, e.g., United States v. Lemmens
    Search
  31. United States v. Broyles
    Search
  32. United States v. Haughton
    Search
  33. United States v. Jakobson
    Search
  34. F.2d 409, 416-417 (CA2 1963), aff'd sub nom. United States v. Seeger
    Search
  35. Kretchet v. United
    Search
  36. Ypparila v. United
    Search
  37. United States v. Englander
    Search
  38. United States v. Erikson
    Search
  39. F.2d 901, was set aside by this Court on a ground wholly unrelated to the issues now before us, sub nom. Giordano v. United
    Search
  40. DOUGLAS, concurring. I would reverse this judgment of conviction and set the petitioner free. In Sicurella v. United
    Search
  41. know that the jihad of the Moslem was a bloody war. This case is very close in its essentials to Negre v. Larsen
    Search
  42. For the reasons I stated in Negre and in Gillette v. United
    Search
  43. As to the Court's analysis of Sicurella v. United
    Search
  44. States, 348 U. S. 385 , and its application of Stromberg v. California
    Search
  45. as explained in Gillette v. United
    Search
  46. States, and Negre v. Larsen
    Search
  47. Since the Appeals Board might have acted on such an interpretation of the letter, reversal is required under Sicurella v. United
    Search
  48. U.S. Supreme Court Clay v. United
    Search
  49. Sicurella v. United
    Search
  50. Witmer v. United
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial