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

First Circuit

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

445 F.2d 850, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 10461

CourtCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit

DecidedApril 29, 1971

Docket7740_1

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 445 F.2d 850 (Chester T. Lane, Jr. v. Local Board No. 17) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the First Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Chester T. Lane, Jr. v. Local Board No. 17, 445 F.2d 850, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 10461 (1st Cir. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

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It is therefore ordered that our opinion in Lane v. Local Board No. 17, No. 7740 (1st Cir. Feb. 24, 1971) be withdrawn, the judgment of the district court reversed, and the case remanded to that court for an order dismissing the complaint for want of jurisdiction.

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

445 F.2d 850, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 10461, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chester-t-lane-jr-v-local-board-no-17-ca1-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack