Lowrance v. United States

Ninth Circuit

Lowrance v. United States

142 F.2d 192, 1943 U.S. App. LEXIS 2142

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedDecember 13, 1943

DocketNo. 10512

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 142 F.2d 192 (Lowrance v. United States) 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

Lowrance v. United States, 142 F.2d 192, 1943 U.S. App. LEXIS 2142 (9th Cir. 1943).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted on a charge of violating § 11 of the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 311. The substance of the charge, as set out in the indictment, was that he had knowingly failed to perform a duty resting upon him under the Act and the regulations in that, having been classified as a conscientious objector in Class IV-E, he failed to comply with the order of his local selective service board requiring him to report for service in a civilian public works camp, a camp for conscientious objectors, as provided in the Act and regulations.

Appellant moved to quash the indictment and also moved for an instructed verdict of acquittal on the ground that the indictment failed to state a public offense. After conviction he moved in arrest of judgment allegedly on the same ground. The only error assigned relates to the rulings of the court denying these several motions.

The judgment is affirmed on the authority of Hopper v. United States, 9 Cir., 142 F.2d 181.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted on a charge of violating § 11 of the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 311. The substance of the charge, as set out in the indictment, was that he had knowingly failed to perform a duty resting upon him under the Act and the regulations in that, having been classified as a conscientious objector in Class IV-E, he failed to comply with the order of his local selective service board requiring him to report for service in a civilian public works camp, a camp for conscientious objectors, as provided in the Act and regulations.

Appellant moved to quash the indictment and also moved for an instructed verdict of acquittal on the ground that the indictment failed to state a public offense. After conviction he moved in arrest of judgment allegedly on the same ground. The only error assigned relates to the rulings of the court denying these several motions.

The judgment is affirmed on the authority of Hopper v. United States, 9 Cir., 142 F.2d 181.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

142 F.2d 192, 1943 U.S. App. LEXIS 2142, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lowrance-v-united-states-ca9-1943.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack