United States v. Longo

Third Circuit

United States v. Longo

140 F.2d 848, 1944 U.S. App. LEXIS 4057

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedFebruary 11, 1944

DocketNo. 8484

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 140 F.2d 848 (United States v. Longo) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Longo, 140 F.2d 848, 1944 U.S. App. LEXIS 4057 (3d Cir. 1944).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Only one point raised by the appellant requires discussion. On April 24, 1943 the appellant was classified by his local board as a conscientious objector and placed in Class 4-E. He was given notice of this classification. By a notice dated June 7, 1943 the board ordered him to report for a physical examination on June 18, 1943. He failed to report at the time specified. Thereafter, a notice of suspected delinquency was sent to him. As a result of this notice he appeared at the board’s office on June 25, 1943 and stated that he would not submit to a physical examination as required. He now contends that he was not delinquent since he did report, albeit after the date specified, and that therefore he did not fail to perform any duty imposed upon him by the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940, 54 Stat. 885, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, §§ 301-318. We cannot agree. The appellant reported to his board only in order to state that he would not comply with the board’s order. His delinquency was plain.

The judgment of the court below is affirmed upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Nick Falbo v. United States, 64 S.Ct. 346.

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

PER CURIAM.

Only one point raised by the appellant requires discussion. On April 24, 1943 the appellant was classified by his local board as a conscientious objector and placed in Class 4-E. He was given notice of this classification. By a notice dated June 7, 1943 the board ordered him to report for a physical examination on June 18, 1943. He failed to report at the time specified. Thereafter, a notice of suspected delinquency was sent to him. As a result of this notice he appeared at the board’s office on June 25, 1943 and stated that he would not submit to a physical examination as required. He now contends that he was not delinquent since he did report, albeit after the date specified, and that therefore he did not fail to perform any duty imposed upon him by the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940, 54 Stat. 885, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, §§ 301-318. We cannot agree. The appellant reported to his board only in order to state that he would not comply with the board’s order. His delinquency was plain.

The judgment of the court below is affirmed upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Nick Falbo v. United States, 64 S.Ct. 346.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

140 F.2d 848, 1944 U.S. App. LEXIS 4057, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-longo-ca3-1944.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack