TROUTMAN

v.

UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By

• United States v. Goodman, 435 F.2d 306 (7th Cir. 1970)
  …umstances beyond Appellant’s control, that it presented a prima facie case, Appellant was not prejudiced by failure of the Board to meet formally. Cf. Battiste v. United States, 5 Cir., 1969, 409 F. 2d 910, 914-915 (Judgment vacated on other grounds 397 U.S. 48, 90 S.Ct. 812, 25 L.Ed.2d 35) which distinguishes United States v. Walsh, D.Mass.1968, 279 F. Supp. 115 on which Appellant relies, where registrant’s request for re-opening preceded the mailing of an order to report. We agree with the government th…
• United States v. Dell'anno, 436 F.2d 1198 (9th Cir. 1971)
  …wise, the subsequent marriage contract was entirely consensual and appellant’s entrance into it obviously was not beyond his control. Battiste v. United States, 409 F. 2d 910, 915 (5th Cir. 1969), vacated on other grounds, Troutman v. United States, 397 U.S. 48, 90 S.Ct. 812, 25 L.Ed.2d 35 (1970); Lentine v. Hollingsworth, 308 F.Supp. 317, 322 (D.S.Car.1970). “Cancellation’’ v, “Postponement” of the Induction Order Appellant then contends that 32 C.F.R. § 1625.2 does not apply for the reason that the Feb…
• United States v. Berry, 443 F.2d 5 (9th Cir. 1971)
  …e request to reopen, and to notify Berry of that action under Reg. 1625.4, although a procedural error, was not prejudicial and therefore does not require reversal. Battiste v. United States, 409 F. 2d 910 (5th Cir. 1969) (remanded on other grounds, 397 U.S. 48, 90 S.Ct. 812, 25 L.Ed.2d 35, subsequent opinion 428 F. 2d 801, 1970).…

Authorities Cited

• Gutknecht v. United States, 396 U.S. 295 (U.S. 1970)