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. Victor Sidney Haluska, Defendant-appellant
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. - 467 F.2d 207
Sept. 28, 1972
Marcus O. Tucker, Santa Monica, Cal., for defendant-appellant.
William D. Keller, U. S. Atty., Eric A. Nobles, Robert C. Bonner, Asst. U. S. Attys., Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before MOORE,* MERRILL and TRASK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Three months after failure to report for induction pursuant to order of his local board, appellant submitted a claim for hardship (III-A) classification. He complains that his local board failed to reopen his classification. The local board did not act improperly. United States v. Hart, 433 F.2d 950 (9th Cir. 1970). Nor was the board required to state reasons for failing to reopen or to advise appellant that it would not reopen, or that it had received adverse information bearing upon appellant's claims. United States v. Hart, supra.
Judgment affirmed.