EX PARTE FRANK JOHNSON; EX PARTE MARY A. RUTHVEN; AND EX PARTE THOMAS HERNDON

Citator

Cited By

• United States v. Estep, 150 F.2d 768 (3d Cir. 1945)
  …ard completion of the administrative process as in the instant case. Defendant either did not report to induction station or to the local board. See for example: Giese v. United States, 1944, 79 U.S.App.D.C. 126, 143 F. 2d 633, affirmed, Per Curiam, 323 U.S. 682, 65 S.Ct. 437; Enge v. Clark, 9 Cir., 1944, 144 F. 2d 638; Bagley v. United States, 9 Cir., 1944, 144 F. 2d 788; United States v. Madole, 2 Cir., 1944, 145 F. 2d 466; Biron v. Collins, 5 Cir., 1944, 145 F. 2d 759; Goodrich v. United States, 5 Cir.,…

  ← 1 / 2 →
• United States v. Blegen, 407 F.2d 767 (7th Cir. 1969)
  …ntention that Blegen was provided not only every required opportunity for fairness before the Board, but was in fact given additional courtesies not normally available or required. Giese v. U. S., 79 U.S.App.D.C. 126, 143 F. 2d 633 (1944), affirmed, 323 U.S. 682, 65 S.Ct. 437, 89 L.Ed. 553 (1945), wherein the refusal to permit the defendant to challenge the validity of an induction order issued by the local board did not deprive the defendant of due process of law. Kariakin v. U. S., 261 F. 2d 263 (9th Cir.…