green
Positive treatment
4.2 score
Treatment trajectory · 1969 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1969
1997
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 12 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
Mississippi Gay Alliance and Anne Debary v. Bill Goudelock
But see Gay Lib v. University of Missouri, W.D.Mo.1976, --- F.Supp. ---- (45 L.W. 2021, June 29, 1976) 37 Cf. Markham Advertising Co. v. State, 1968, 73 Wash.2d 405 , 439 P.2d 248 , appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question, 1969, 393 U.S. 316 , 89 S.Ct. 553 , 21 L.Ed.2d 512 (state statute may permit highway billboards to advertise businesses located in the neighborhood but not elsewhere) Even broadly drawn and superficially content-neutral source restrictions may produce unjustifiable content discrimination.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Fein v. Selective Service System Local Board No. 7
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
That view was implicitly rejected without discussion in Boyd v. Clark, 393 U.S. at 316, 89 S.Ct. 553 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Fein v. Selective Service System Local Board No. 7
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
That view was implicitly rejected without discussion in Boyd v. Clark, 393 U.S. at 316, 89 S.Ct. 553 Nor was the majority in Breen yet ready to adopt his view, again expressed by way of a concurring opinion in that case, that pre-induction review should not be limited to cases where there is a deprivation of a clear statutory right to a certain classification.
cited
Cited "see"
Donnelly Advertising Corp. v. Mayor of Baltimore
See Markham Advertising Co. v. State, 73 Wash. 2d 405 , 439 *667 P. 2d 248 (1968), appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question, 393 U. S. 316 , 89 S. Ct. 553 , 21 L.Ed.2d 512 (1969).
discussed
Cited "see"
Hamilton v. Andrews
See Markham Advertising Co. v. State, 73 Wash.2d 405 , 439 P.2d 248 (1968), appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question, 393 U.S. 316 , 89 S.Ct. 553 , 21 L.Ed.2d 512 (1969); State v. Yard Birds, Inc., 9 Wash.App. 514 , 513 P.2d 1030 (1973).
cited
Cited "see"
Phillips v. Rockefeller
Jacobs v. Tawes, 250 F.2d 611 (4th Cir. 1957); See Boyd v. Clark, 287 F.S.upp. 561 (S.D.N.Y.1968), aff’d on other grounds, 393 U.S. 316 , 89 S.Ct. 553 , 21 L.Ed.2d 511 (1969).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Oscar Dale Porter v. Elliot L. Richardson, Attorney General of the United States
(2×)
See also Boyd v. Clark, 393 U.S. 316 , 89 S.Ct. 553 , 21 L.Ed.2d 511 (1969).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Robert J. Crowley v. Peter P. Pierce, Jr., as State Director of Selective Service
Compare Oestereich v. Selective Service Board, 1968, 393 U.S. 233 , 89 S.Ct. 414 , 21 L.Ed.2d 402 , and Breen v. Selective Service Board, 1970, 396 U.S. 460 , 90 S.Ct. 661 , 24 L.Ed.2d 653 , with Clark v. Gabriel, 1968, 393 U.S. 256 , 89 S.Ct. 424 , 21 L.Ed.2d 418 , and Boyd v. Clark (S.D.N.Y. 1968) 287 F.Supp. 561 , aff’d 393 U.S. 316 , 89 S.Ct. 553 , 21 L.Ed.2d 511 (1969).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Francis L. McLain v. Selective Service Local Board No. 47, Etc.
See also Boyd v. Clark, 287 F.Supp. 561 (S.D.N.Y.1968), aff’d per curiam at 393 U.S. 316 , 89 S.Ct. 553 , 21 L.Ed.2d 511 (1969) on the basis of Clark v. Gabriel, supra. This Circuit has on several occasions considered the availability of pre-induction review under the Oestereich exception to Section 10(b) (3).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Murray v. Vaughn
See, e. g., Oestereich v. Selective Service System Local Board No. 11, 393 U.S. 233 , 89 S.Ct. 414 , 21 L.Ed.2d 402 (1968), Wolff v. Selective Service Local Board No. 16, 372 F.2d 817 , 826 and n. 7 (2nd Cir. 1967), Boyd v. Clark, 287 F.Supp. 561 (S.D.N.Y.1968), judgment affirmed, but jurisdictional amount question expressly left open, 393 U.S. 316 , 89 S.Ct. 553 , 21 L.Ed.2d 511 (Jan. 13, 1969), Armendariz v. Hershey, 295 F.Supp. 1351 (W.D.Texas Feb. 5, 1969).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Kraus v. Selective Service System Local 25
See also Boyd v. Clark, 287 F.Supp. 561 (S.D.N.Y.1968), affd per curiam, 393 U.S. 316 , 89 S.Ct. 553 , 21 L.Ed.2d 511 (1969), which held that § 10(b) (3) barred a pre-induction challenge to the constitutionality of student deferments. .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Kraus v. Selective Service System Local 25
See also Boyd v. Clark, 287 F.Supp. 561 (S.D.N.Y.1968), aff'd per curiam, 393 U.S. 316 , 89 S.Ct. 553 , 21 L.Ed.2d 511 (1969), which held that § 10(b) (3) barred a pre-induction challenge to the constitutionality of student deferments. 3 In his memorandum submitted to the Court in April 1968, the Solicitor General stated in part: "It is possible to construe [§ 10(b) (3)] as applicable to the generality of situations where the local board has applied its judgment, but to exclude purported action of a board which is in fact contrary to an exemption which has been expressly granted by statute.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
MARKHAM ADVERTISING CO., INC., ET AL.
v.
WASHINGTON ET AL.
v.
WASHINGTON ET AL.
648.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jan 13, 1969.
Per Curiam.
Cited by 6 opinions | Published
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF WASHINGTON.
Alfred J. Schweppe and Thomas R. Beierle for appellants.
PER CURIAM.
The appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.