green
Positive treatment
4.1 score
Treatment trajectory · 1953 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1953
1989
2026
Statutes interpreted (leading-cases list)
#14
32 C.F.R. § 1641.3
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Thomas Martin Austin
The Court stated: The record does not support the charge that, during this period, there was deliberate purpose on the part of petitioner not to comply with the Selective Service Act or the regulation issued thereunder. 344 U.S. at 924, 73 S.Ct. at 494, 97 L.Ed. at 712.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Clyde Gene Ramey
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Ebey, supra. “A registrant is not required to . report to the board every move that he makes.” Id. at 377 of 424 F.2d; United States v. Chudy, supra. We conclude that the record does not support the charge that “there was deliberate purpose on the part of petitioner *710 not to comply with the Selective Service Act or the regulation issued thereunder.” Ward v. United States, supra, 344 U.S. at 924, 73 S.Ct. at 494.
discussed
Cited "see"
Simuel Brent Schutz, Jr. v. United States
(2×)
United States v. Rabb, 394 F.2d 230, 232 (3d Cir. 1968) (“voluntarily, with knowledge that it was prohibited by law, and with the purpose of violating the law, and not by mistake, accident or in good faith”); Graves v. United States, 252 F.2d 878, 881 (9th Cir. 1958); Candler v. United States, 146 F.2d 424, 426 (5th Cir. 1944) (“evidence is as consistent with innocence as with guilt, and fails signally to show willful intent”); see Ward v. United States, 344 U.S. 924 , 73 S.Ct. 494 , 97 L.Ed. 711 (1953). .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Young
See also, Ward v. United States, 344 U.S. 924 , 73 S.Ct. 494 , 97 L.Ed. 711 (1953), rev’ing 195 F.2d 441 (5th Cir. 1952); and see, Venus v. United States, 368 U. S. 345 , 82 S.Ct. 384 , 7 L.Ed.2d 341 (1961), rev’ing 287 F.2d 304 (9th Cir. 1960).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Michael Waldo Simmons v. United States
Compare also Venus v. United States, 9 Cir., 1960, 287 F.2d 304 , reversed, 368 U.S. 345 , 82 S.Ct. 384 , 7 L.Ed.2d 341 (1961) (per curiam opinion citing Ward v. United States, 1953, 344 U.S. 924 , 73 S.Ct. 494 , 97 L.Ed. 711 ). .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
National Labor Relations Board v. Atlanta Metallic Casket Co.
N.L.R.B. v. American Thread Co., 5 Cir., 198 F.2d 137 ; see also N.L.R.B. v. Nina Dye Works Co., 3 Cir., 198 F.2d 362 , and Supreme Court per curiam opinion reversing both of these decisions in reliance upon the Dant case, supra, 344 U.S. 924 . 73 S.Ct. 390 . 5 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Ward
v.
United States
v.
United States
No. 390.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Feb 2, 1953.
John M. Coe and Ralph E. Powe argued the cause for petitioner., With them on the brief was James T. Wright. John R. Benney argued the cause for the United States., With him on the brief were Solicitor General Cummings, Assistant Attorney General Murray, Beatrice Rosenberg and Carl H. Imlay.
Cited by 18 opinions | Published
Per Curiam:
The indictment in this case charged that between the dates of March 30, 1951, and May 31, 1951, petitioner “knowingly” failed to furnish his local Selective Service Board with a correct address where mail might be delivered to him. 50 U. S. C. App. §§ 462 (a), 465 (b); 32 CFR § 1641.3. The record does not support the charge that, during this period, there was deliberate purpose on the part of petitioner not to comply with the Selective Service Act or the regulation issued thereunder. Accordingly, the decision below is reversed.