ROBB D. HITCHCOCK, APPELLANT,
v.
MELVIN H. LAIRD, AS SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, ET AL., APPELLEES
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 a party who will comply only with favorable judicial decisions is not entitled to have his claim heard.
Hitchcock sought a writ of mandamus to be discharged as a conscientious objector after administrative denial and induction. He has been Absent Without…
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 Conscientious Objector Status cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
After administrative denial of his request to be disenrolled as a member of the R.O.T.C. as a conscientious objector and his subsequent induction on active duty,1 Hitchcock sought a writ of mandamus ordering the Army to grant his request for discharge as a conscientious objector. The District Court denied the petition on September 9, 1971, and this appeal followed.
Hitchcock has been Absent Without Leave since May 27, 1971, and on June 1 he was posted as a deserter. By taking this course of action, Hitchcock has indicated that he will comply with the decision of this court only if it is favorable. We believe that a party who will comply only with favorable judicial decisions is not entitled to have his claim heard. Johnson v. Laird, 9 Cir., 432 F. 2d 77, 79. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed, with leave to the petitioner to move the court to reinstate his appeal if he will surrender himself to the custody of the military authorities at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri within 30 days of the filing of this order. Dismissed.
. His request for disenrollment was granted on other grounds, leading to his assignment to active duty in accordance with the terms of his contract.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Sacco, 563 F.2d 552 (2d Cir. 1977)
-
Ruetz v. Lash, 500 F.2d 1225 (7th Cir. 1974)
Authorities Cited
- Zels B. Johnson v. Laird, 432 F.2d 77 (9th Cir. 1970)