Kenneth H. Smith v. Stanley S. Resor

Ninth Circuit

Kenneth H. Smith v. Stanley S. Resor

456 F.2d 1109, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 10773

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMarch 14, 1972

Docket26272, 26647

StatusPublished

This text of 456 F.2d 1109 (Kenneth H. Smith v. Stanley S. Resor) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kenneth H. Smith v. Stanley S. Resor, 456 F.2d 1109, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 10773 (9th Cir. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

No. 26,272 is an appeal from a decision of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissing the complaint filed by certain of the plaintiffs for injunctive and declaratory relief. Appellants contend that the Army Regulation AR 635-20 prohibiting the filing of applications for discharge based on conscientious objection at Overseas Replacement Centers is in violation of their rights under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

The contentions made by appellants have been considered and determined adversely to them in the recent decision of *1110 this court entitled Turpin, et al. v. Re-sor, et al., 9 Cir., 452 F.2d 240, decided December 15,1971.

The defendants in the above case appealed from a portion of the judgment of the district court in which the district judge permitted certain of the other plaintiffs in the above action, to wit, Smith, Mazzelli, Burks and Martin, to file their application for conscientious objector discharge at the Oakland Army Base. 1 The court having been informed that none of said four persons is now in the active service of the Army, it appears that the defendants' appeal is moot. Accordingly, that portion of the order of the district court permitting such applications to be filed at the Oakland Army Base is vacated. See, United States v. Munsingwear, 340 U.S. 36, at 39, 71 S.Ct. 104, 95 L.Ed. 36 (1950).

In No. 26,272 the judgment is affirmed. In No. 26,647 the judgment is vacated as moot.

1

. The Clerk has numbered that appeal No. 26,647.

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

PER CURIAM:

No. 26,272 is an appeal from a decision of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissing the complaint filed by certain of the plaintiffs for injunctive and declaratory relief. Appellants contend that the Army Regulation AR 635-20 prohibiting the filing of applications for discharge based on conscientious objection at Overseas Replacement Centers is in violation of their rights under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

The contentions made by appellants have been considered and determined adversely to them in the recent decision of *1110 this court entitled Turpin, et al. v. Re-sor, et al., 9 Cir., 452 F.2d 240, decided December 15,1971.

The defendants in the above case appealed from a portion of the judgment of the district court in which the district judge permitted certain of the other plaintiffs in the above action, to wit, Smith, Mazzelli, Burks and Martin, to file their application for conscientious objector discharge at the Oakland Army Base. 1 The court having been informed that none of said four persons is now in the active service of the Army, it appears that the defendants' appeal is moot. Accordingly, that portion of the order of the district court permitting such applications to be filed at the Oakland Army Base is vacated. See, United States v. Munsingwear, 340 U.S. 36, at 39, 71 S.Ct. 104, 95 L.Ed. 36 (1950).

In No. 26,272 the judgment is affirmed. In No. 26,647 the judgment is vacated as moot.

1

. The Clerk has numbered that appeal No. 26,647.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

456 F.2d 1109, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 10773, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kenneth-h-smith-v-stanley-s-resor-ca9-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack