TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

United States v. James A. Karlock

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. James A. KARLOCK, Appellant

United States v. Karlock, 427 F.2d 156 (9th Cir. 1970)
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
May 7, 1970
Docket
No. 24871
Judges
Chambers, Wright, Boldt
Citations
427 F.2d 1561970 U.S. App. LEXIS 9376

Opinion — Per Curiam

*157 PER CURIAM:

In this selective service case, Karlock was able to get his claim for conscientious objector classification adequately (so far as a paper showing is concerned) before the Appeals Board. That board rejected his claim. (A Selective Service officer had suggested he do so inasmuch as an appeal was pending from the local board in Karlock’s student classification.)

Selective Service having invited him to make such a claim, we conclude Karlock was entitled to some ruling or notice that would have enabled him to request a personal appearance before the local board. This was not done and we regard it as fatal to the conviction for refusing to be inducted.

If he was entitled to any consideration of his claim, he was entitled to it at the beginning level, as well as the appellate level. That is all we hold.

Judgment reversed.

How later courts describe this case

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

1970: 11971: 11972: 119702026peak 1970 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. United States v. Lawrence Gaylord Olson447 F.2d 1362 (9th Cir. 1971)
  2. Jack L. Edwards v. Selective Service Local Board No. 111, Newton County, Georgia432 F.2d 287 (5th Cir. 1970)
  3. United States v. Rodwell338 F. Supp. 780 (N.D. Cal. 1972)

Most recent

  1. United States v. Rodwell338 F. Supp. 780 (N.D. Cal. 1972)
  2. United States v. Lawrence Gaylord Olson447 F.2d 1362 (9th Cir. 1971)
  3. Jack L. Edwards v. Selective Service Local Board No. 111, Newton County, Georgia432 F.2d 287 (5th Cir. 1970)

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