TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

John Henry Hacker v. United States

John Henry HACKER, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee

Hacker v. United States, 215 F.2d 575 (9th Cir. 1954)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
September 15, 1954
Docket
No. 14072_1
Judges
Bone, Pope
Citations
215 F.2d 5751954 U.S. App. LEXIS 2861

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM.

Hacker appeals from a judgment of conviction of refusal to submit to induction contrary' to the provisions of the Universal Military Training and Service Act, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 451 et seq. The facts in his case cannot be distinguished from those in Dickenson v. United States, 346 U.S. 389 ,. 74 S.Ct. 152 . In the questionnaire filed with his local draft board he claimed classification as a minister of religion. He furnished the board a number of documents and affidavits tending to support this claim. Among these was a certificate of the Superintendent of Ministers and Evangelists of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society that he was an ordained minister of that society, in the full-time ministry as a “pioneer”, and authorized to perform all the usual rites and ceremonies of Jehovah’s Witnesses. There was also an affidavit of all the members of his congregation that he was its only full-time minister. He disclosed that he had -a part-time secular job, driving a school .bus. This averaged about fifteen hours a week, and paid him only $640.40 per year. This work was done early in the mornings and late in the afternoons, and .extended only during the school months. However, he showed that he spent much time’in “missionary work”, making calls, in addition to his ministerial work preaching to his own congregation. His showing was that he was one of the few Jehovah’s Witnesses engaged in preaching full time. There was no evidence to the contrary.

We therefore hold, on the authority of the Dickenson case, that the denial of a ministerial exemption to appellant was without basis in fact.

The judgment is reversed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1956: 11957: 21958: 11961: 11972: 11978: 11979: 11986: 119562026peak 1957 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Lewis v. Manufacturers National Bank of Detroit364 U.S. 603 (1961)
  2. United States v. Donald MacIo Hurt244 F.2d 46 (3d Cir. 1957)
  3. United States v. Kahl141 F. Supp. 161 (E.D. Mich. 1956)
  4. Robinson v. Howard Bank (In re Kors, Inc.)64 B.R. 163 (D. Vt. 1986)
  5. Bramsher v. Zahn605 F.2d 323 (7th Cir. 1979)
  6. In re Zahn452 F. Supp. 1341 (E.D. Wis. 1978)

Most recent

  1. Robinson v. Howard Bank (In re Kors, Inc.)64 B.R. 163 (D. Vt. 1986)
  2. Bramsher v. Zahn605 F.2d 323 (7th Cir. 1979)
  3. In re Zahn452 F. Supp. 1341 (E.D. Wis. 1978)
  4. United States v. Brown338 F. Supp. 409 (N.D. Ill. 1972)
  5. Lewis v. Manufacturers National Bank of Detroit364 U.S. 603 (1961)
  6. Norman Christian Wolfe, Jr. v. United States256 F.2d 434 (6th Cir. 1958)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Dickinson v. United States, 346 U.S. 389 (1953) 449

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list