Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google
Scholar
on the Web
Google Web
Search
MSN Web
Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News
Search
Google News
Archive Search
Yahoo! News
Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com
Search
Google Blog
Search
Technorati Blog
Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Gary Lou Stockdale, Defendant-appellant
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. - 464 F.2d 147
July 5, 1972
Jack Drake, University, Ala., for defendant-appellant.
Ira DeMent, U. S. Atty., D. Broward Segrest, Wade B. Perry, Jr., Asst. U. S. Attys., Montgomery, Ala., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before WISDOM and INGRAHAM, Circuit Judges, and BOOTLE, District Judge.
PER CURIAM:
In this selective service case this Court feels compelled to affirm the district court's holding that crystallization of the plaintiff-appellant's conscientious objection between the time a notice of induction was mailed and the time actual induction was scheduled, was not a change in status "resulting from circumstances over which the registrant had no control". Ehlert v. United States, 1971, 402 U.S. 99, 91 S.Ct. 1319, 28 L.Ed.2d 625. Ehlert held also that the Selective Service Statute, 32 CFR Sec. 1625.2 (1971) prohibits a Local Board's reopening a registrant's classification in circumstances similar to those this case presents. Here, however, the registrant's board did take some action which the registrant describes in his brief as a "de facto" reopening of his classification. The United States Attorney, in his brief, describes this action of the Local Board as a "courtesy interview". Regardless of how it may be described, the Board had no power to reopen the registrant's classification. Moreover, the Board's conclusory statements, pure dictum, which the registrant had no opportunity to respond to, should not be permitted to prejudice the registrant in any other proceedings he might bring.
The judgment is affirmed.