UNITED STATES
v.
WITMER
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the registrant received adequate notice of the Board's classification and that there was a basis in fact for the classification.
The registrant was notified orally of the Board's decision not to change his classification and had knowledge of the Board's action and his appeal. He…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Ministerial Classification cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This case, like its companion case of United States v. Hagaman, 3 Cir., 213 F. 2d 86, which opinion is filed this day, raises two questions. One is the procedural point. This point is exactly like that in the Hagaman case in that, the registrant was notified orally, after personal appearance before the local Board, that his classification would not be changed. He was not given a written notice. But he did have knowledge of the Board’s action and he did have his. appeal. What we have said in Hagaman, and our reliance there on the Martin (Martin v. United States, 4 Cir., 190 F. 2d 775) and Atkins (Atkins v. United States, 10 Cir., 204 F. 2d 269) decisions, applies here.
The other point in the case is the claim that the Board’s classification had no basis in fact. Witmer claimed agricultural, ministerial, and conscientious objector classifications in a series of claims. Of course-this is not, itself, conclusive; a man has a right to raise as many points as he has. But there were inconsistencies in his claims; he was willing to help the war effort by raising food for it, he said, but not to bear arms. His ministerial claim was easily negatived. After going through the record we think there was ample to let the administrative authorities conclude that none of his claims was well-founded.
The whole matter was thoroughly discussed by Judge Murphy in his opinion, D.C.M.D.Pa.1953, 115 F.Supp. 19, and wei cannot add helpfully to it except to point out that since it was written the Ninth Circuit, 203 F. 2d 336, was reversed in the Dickinson case by the Supreme Court, Dickinson v. United States, 1953, 346 U.S. 389, 74 S.Ct. 152.
The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Witmer v. United States, 348 U.S. 375 (U.S. 1955)
-
United States v. King, 455 F.2d 345 (1st Cir. 1972)
-
United States v. Mekolichick, 234 F.2d 71 (3d Cir. 1956)
Authorities Cited
- Dickinson v. United States, 346 U.S. 389 (U.S. 1953)
- Martin v. United States, 190 F.2d 775 (4th Cir. 1951)
- United States v. Hagaman, 213 F.2d 86 (3d Cir. 1954)
- Dickinson v. United States, 203 F.2d 336 (9th Cir. 1953)
- Atkins v. United States, 204 F.2d 269 (10th Cir. 1953)