Arthur Paul Watkins and Genesee Lime Products Company, Inc. v. Phillip Rupert, Chairman, Local Draft Board No. 76, Selective Service System

Second Circuit

Arthur Paul Watkins and Genesee Lime Products Company, Inc. v. Phillip Rupert, Chairman, Local Draft Board No. 76, Selective Service System

224 F.2d 47, 1955 U.S. App. LEXIS 4048

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedJune 22, 1955

Docket347, Docket 23687

StatusPublished

Cited by13 cases

This text of 224 F.2d 47 (Arthur Paul Watkins and Genesee Lime Products Company, Inc. v. Phillip Rupert, Chairman, Local Draft Board No. 76, Selective Service System) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Arthur Paul Watkins and Genesee Lime Products Company, Inc. v. Phillip Rupert, Chairman, Local Draft Board No. 76, Selective Service System, 224 F.2d 47, 1955 U.S. App. LEXIS 4048 (2d Cir. 1955).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The district court was clearly correct in refusing to give plaintiffs the relief they seek at this time. Judicial intervention in the selective service selection system — in any ease drastically limited, 50 U.S.C.Appendix, § 460(b)— must await the exhaustion by the registrant of all administrative remedies. The exact point at which such remedies have been fully utilized may not always be easy to ascertain, but no judicial review has ever been held appropriate- before the registrant has responded, either affirmatively or negatively, to the order of induction. Falbo v. United States, 320 U.S. 549, 64 S.Ct. 346, 88 L.Ed. 305; Estep v. United States, 327 U.S. 114, 66 S.Ct. 423, 90 L.Ed. 567; Witmer v. United States, 348 U.S. 375, 75 S.Ct. 392. Certainly no adequate showing of danger of irreparable harm, prerequisite to any kind of injunctive relief, can be made so long as the registrant has not decided whether or not to-obey the induction order and before the government has decided whether or not to prosecute if he decides not to report. And if plaintiff 'Wátkins is unwilling to' run the gamut of criminal prosecution, he can test the legality of his induction after he has submitted to it by suing out a writ of habeas corpus..

The- judgment is affirmed; and the plaintiffs’ motion for intermediate relief, including additional time to perfect their appeal and stay of ’induction, is denied.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

The district court was clearly correct in refusing to give plaintiffs the relief they seek at this time. Judicial intervention in the selective service selection system — in any ease drastically limited, 50 U.S.C.Appendix, § 460(b)— must await the exhaustion by the registrant of all administrative remedies. The exact point at which such remedies have been fully utilized may not always be easy to ascertain, but no judicial review has ever been held appropriate- before the registrant has responded, either affirmatively or negatively, to the order of induction. Falbo v. United States, 320 U.S. 549, 64 S.Ct. 346, 88 L.Ed. 305; Estep v. United States, 327 U.S. 114, 66 S.Ct. 423, 90 L.Ed. 567; Witmer v. United States, 348 U.S. 375, 75 S.Ct. 392. Certainly no adequate showing of danger of irreparable harm, prerequisite to any kind of injunctive relief, can be made so long as the registrant has not decided whether or not to-obey the induction order and before the government has decided whether or not to prosecute if he decides not to report. And if plaintiff 'Wátkins is unwilling to' run the gamut of criminal prosecution, he can test the legality of his induction after he has submitted to it by suing out a writ of habeas corpus..

The- judgment is affirmed; and the plaintiffs’ motion for intermediate relief, including additional time to perfect their appeal and stay of ’induction, is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

224 F.2d 47, 1955 U.S. App. LEXIS 4048, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arthur-paul-watkins-and-genesee-lime-products-company-inc-v-phillip-ca2-1955.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack