TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Lawrence Donald Leitner v. United States

Lawrence Donald LEITNER, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee

Leitner v. United States, 222 F.2d 363 (4th Cir. 1955)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
May 12, 1955
Docket
No. 6932_1
Judges
Dobie, Parker, Per Curiam, Soper
Citations
222 F.2d 3631955 U.S. App. LEXIS 3818

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a conviction and sentence for refusal to be inducted into the military service of the United States in violation of the provisions of the Universal Military Training and Service Act, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 451 et seq. On waiver of jury trial the case was heard by the judge below without a jury; and, as appellant admitted the refusal to be inducted, the only ques *364 tion before the court was the validity of classification order of the draft board. Appellant, who was a carpenter by trade, claimed to be a minister of religion of the sect known as Jehovah’s Witnesses and to have become a minister of that sect when he was nine years of age. There was evidence before the board, however, to the effect that he worked as a carpenter 45 hours a week and devoted only 15 hours a month to religious work. There was evidence also that appellant’s brother was the “company servant” or “presiding minister” of the company of Jehovah’s Witnesses of which appellant was a member and that appellant was merely a “territory servant” and “Bible study servant”. The facts are fully set forth in the “Memorandum of Facts and Authorities” filed by the trial judge and nothing need be added thereto. For reasons therein adequately stated, we agree with the trial judge that the order of the board denying appellant the classification of a minister of religion may not be condemned as arbitrary or unreasonable, or as lacking support in the record, or as denying appellant procedural or other rights.

Appellant complains because the local board did not make an adequate and full memorandum of oral evidence given at the time of his personal appearance and because it filed with the record before the Appeals Board a letter setting forth its reasons for denying him the classification which he asked. Section 1624.2 of the regulations provides, however, for the registrant himself to make the summary of the oral information which he presents to the board; and for the local board to file with the record before the Appeals Board a letter setting forth the reasons for its .action can be no more objectionable than for a trial court to file an opinion setting forth the reasons for its action in a case that is appealed. ■ The letter introduces no facts into the record, but merely gives the reason for the board’s action on the basis of facts otherwise appearing.

Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

1956: 21960: 11963: 21968: 11992: 119562026peak 1956 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Paul John Matyastik v. United States392 F.2d 657 (5th Cir. 1968)
  2. United States v. Grafton Earl Stewart322 F.2d 592 (4th Cir. 1963)
  3. Floyd Linn Rathbun v. United States236 F.2d 514 (10th Cir. 1956)
  4. United States v. Tettenburn186 F. Supp. 203 (D. Maryland 1960)
  5. United States v. Bartell144 F. Supp. 793 (S.D.N.Y. 1956)
  6. Hess v. Port Authority Trans-Hudson Corp.(PATH)809 F. Supp. 1172 (D.N.J. 1992)

Most recent

  1. Hess v. Port Authority Trans-Hudson Corp.(PATH)809 F. Supp. 1172 (D.N.J. 1992)
  2. Paul John Matyastik v. United States392 F.2d 657 (5th Cir. 1968)
  3. United States v. Grafton Earl Stewart322 F.2d 592 (4th Cir. 1963)
  4. United States v. Stewart213 F. Supp. 497 (D. Maryland 1963)
  5. United States v. Tettenburn186 F. Supp. 203 (D. Maryland 1960)
  6. United States v. Bartell144 F. Supp. 793 (S.D.N.Y. 1956)

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 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

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