United States v. Victor Sidney Haluska
This text of 467 F.2d 207 (United States v. Victor Sidney Haluska) 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.
Opinion
Three months after failure to report for induction pursuant to order of his local board, appellant submitted a claim for hardship (III-A) classification. He complains that his local board failed to reopen his classification. The local board did not act improperly. United States v. Hart, 433 F.2d 950 (9th Cir. 1970). Nor was the board required to state reasons for failing to reopen or to advise appellant that it would not reopen, or that it had received adverse information bearing upon appellant’s claims. United States v. Hart, supra.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
467 F.2d 207, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-victor-sidney-haluska-ca9-1972.