TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Chester T. Lane, Jr. v. Local Board No. 17

Chester T. LANE, Jr., Plaintiff, Appellant, v. LOCAL BOARD NO. 17, Defendant, Appellee

Lane v. Local Bd. No. 17, 445 F.2d 850 (1st Cir. 1971)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
April 29, 1971
Docket
No. 7740_1
Judges
Aldrich, Mc-Entee, Coffin
Citations
445 F.2d 8501971 U.S. App. LEXIS 10461

Opinion — Per Curiam

MEMORANDUM and JUDGMENT PER CURIAM.

Subsequent to our decision in this case and before our disposition of a petition for rehearing, the Supreme Court announced its opinion in Ehlert v. United States, 402 U.S. 99 , 91 S.Ct. 1319 , 28 L.Ed.2d 625 (1971), holding that Selective Service Regulations bar presentation to local boards of claims of conscientious objection which allegedly crystallize between the mailing of a notice of induction and the scheduled induction date. The district court, 315 F.Supp. 1355 , had granted preinduction review of local board decisions not to reopen registrants’ classifications after just such a claim of late crystallization. Assuming the propriety of Board consideration of such late claims, we nevertheless held that pre-induction review was not available in this case. Although we had indicated our approval of the late crystallization theory in United States v. Stoppelman, 406 F.2d 127 , 131 n. 7 (1st Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 395 U.S. 981 , 89 S.Ct. 2141 , 23 L.Ed.2d 769 (1969), the Court has now rejected it, so far as Board action is concerned. There can be, therefore, no review, either before or after induction, of a local board decision not to reopen the classification of a registrant who asserts that his conscientious objection arose after receipt of his induction notice.

It is therefore ordered that our opinion in Lane v. Local Board No. 17, No. 7740 (1st Cir. Feb. 24, 1971) be withdrawn, the judgment of the district court reversed, and the case remanded to that court for an order dismissing the complaint for want of jurisdiction.

How later courts describe this case

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

1971: 11972: 11995: 119712026peak 1971 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Robert James Lubben v. Selective Service System Local Board No. 27453 F.2d 645 (1st Cir. 1972)
  2. Schauer v. DeNeveu Homeowner's Ass'n533 N.W.2d 470 (Wis. 1995)
  3. Fine v. Tarr330 F. Supp. 573 (D. Maryland 1971)

Most recent

  1. Schauer v. DeNeveu Homeowner's Ass'n533 N.W.2d 470 (Wis. 1995)
  2. Robert James Lubben v. Selective Service System Local Board No. 27453 F.2d 645 (1st Cir. 1972)
  3. Fine v. Tarr330 F. Supp. 573 (D. Maryland 1971)

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 3

DepthCaseCited by
Ehlert v. United States, 402 U.S. 99 (1971) 307
United States v. Stoppelman, 406 F.2d 127 (1st Cir. 1969) 57
Lane v. Local Bd. No. 17, 315 F. Supp. 1355 (D. Mass. 1970) 10

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