Citation network
FeIn Vs. Selective Service System
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Mar 21, 1972
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
-
Fein v. SelectiveSearch
-
Service System - 405 U.S. 365 (1972) U.S. Supreme Court Fein v. SelectiveSearch
-
Service System, 405 U.S. 365 (1972) Fein v. SelectiveSearch
-
judgment in determining facts and arriving at a classification for the registrant. Clark Page 405 U. S. 366 v. GabrielSearch
-
Oestereich v. SelectiveSearch
-
b)(3). The Second Circuit affirmed, 430 F.2d at 377-380, relying, as did the District Court, upon Oestereich v. SelectiveSearch
-
Clark v. PageSearch
-
and Boyd v. ClarkSearch
-
b)(3), and this Court's decisions in Oestereich, Gabriel, and Boyd, all supra, and in Breen v. SelectiveSearch
-
the scope of judicial review, and not to deprive the registrant of all access to the courts. See, for example, Estep v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 327 U. S. 114 (1946), and McKart v. PageSearch
-
b)(3) with the 1967 statute by way of prompt congressional reaction provoked by the Second Circuit's decision in Wolf v. SelectiveSearch
-
U.S. at 393 U. S. 238 . See Gutknecht v. UnitedSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
But, in my view, it takes the extreme case where the Board can be said to flout the law, as it did in Oestereich v. SelectiveSearch
-
later with respect to a registrant statutorily entitled to a deferment, rather than to an exemption. See also Kolden v. SelectiveSearch
-
b)(3) in Boyd v. ClarkSearch
-
exemplified by United States v. HaughtonSearch
-
the processing or classifying of registrants. In a memorandum filed here since the 1971 Act in No. 70-251, Joseph v. UnitedSearch
-
the observation that a registrant may also challenge his classification by post-induction habeas corpus. See Witmer v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. EdwardsSearch
-
United States v. LenhardSearch
-
Scott v. CommandingSearch
-
United States v. BroylesSearch
-
United States v. StetterSearch
-
United States v. WashingtonSearch
-
United States v. LemmensSearch
-
United States v. CumminsSearch
-
See Gonzales v. UnitedSearch
-
required by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment in Morgan v. UnitedSearch
-
See Mullane v. CentralSearch
-
Greene Page 405 U. S. 383 v. McElroySearch
-
Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
See Kwong Hai Chew v. ColdingSearch
-
has been most reluctant to defer judicial review until after those orders have taken effect. See Opp Cotton Mills v. AdministratorSearch
-
United States v. IllinoisSearch
-
Londoner v. CitySearch
-
to the risk of substantial penalties should the order prove to have been validly made. See Oklahoma Operating Co. v. LoveSearch
-
Ex parte Young, 209 U. S. 123 . Cf. Reisman v. CaplinSearch
-
manpower for the Armed Forces. See remarks of Senator Russell, 113 Cong.Rec. 15426. We held in Oestereich v. SelectiveSearch
-
b)(3) was no bar to the suit. See also Breen v. SelectiveSearch
-
Service Board, 396 U. S. 460 . The courts below, relying on Clark v. GabrielSearch
-
being stripped of his exemption does not, however, distinguish his case from Oestereich. Indeed, it is Clark v. GabrielSearch
-
which the Solicitor General has conceded to be error in a similar context. Memorandum for the United States, Joseph v. UnitedSearch
-
States, No. 7251. See also Memorandum for the United States, Lenhard v. UnitedSearch
-
exaltation of property rights than they have of constitutionally safeguarded individual liberties. See, e.g., Poole v. StateSearch
-
Clay v. UnitedSearch
-
Mulloy v. UnitedSearch
-
Gonzales v. UnitedSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial