green
Positive treatment
1.5 score
Treatment trajectory · 1968 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1968
1997
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Rolf J. Kolden v. Selective Service Local Board No. 4, Beltrami County, Minnesota
See also a companion case, Zigmond v. Selective Service Bd. No. 16, 391 U.S. 930 , 88 S.Ct. 1831 , 20 L.Ed.2d 851 (1968).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Hodges v. Clark
(2×)
The following cases have held that § 460(b) (3) precludes judicial review by way of civil actions: Oestereich v. Selective Service Local Board No. 11, D.C., 280 F.Supp. 78 , affd. 10 Cir., 390 F.2d 100 , cert. granted May 20, 1968, 391 U.S. 912 , 88 S.Ct. 1804 , 20 L.Ed.2d 651 ; Breen v. Selective Service Local Board No. 16, 284 F.Supp. 749 (Conn.1968); National Student Association v. Hershey, Civil No. 3078-67 (D.C.1968); Carpenter v. Hendrix, 277 F.Supp. 660 (N.D.Ga.1967); Moskowitz v. Kindt, 273 F.Supp. 646 (E.D.Pa.1967); Pavloff v. Local Board Number 57, 288 F. Supp. 535 (N.D.Cal.1967), a…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Paulekas v. Clark
(2×)
Among such decisions are: Oestereich v. Selective Service System Local Board No. 16, D.C., 280 F.Supp. 78 , aff. 10 Cir., 390 F.2d 100 , cert. grant. 391 U.S. 912 , 88 S.Ct. 1804 , 20 L.Ed.2d 651 , May 20, 1968; Breen v. Selective Service Local Board No. 16, 284 F.Supp. 749 (Conn.1968); Carpenter v. Hendrix, 277 F.Supp. 660 (N.D.Ga.1967); Moskowitz v. Kindt, 273 F.Supp. 646 (E.D.Pa.1967), aff. 394 F.2d 648 (3 Cir. 1968); see also Shiftman v. Selective Service Local Board No. 5 (2 Cir. 1968), stay of induction denied 391 U.S. 930 , 88 S.Ct. 1831 , 20 L.Ed.2d 849 , May 27, 1968; Zigmon v. Select…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Shiffman
v.
Selective Service Local Board No. 5
v.
Selective Service Local Board No. 5
Supreme Court of the United States.
May 27, 1968.
Melvin L. Wulf for applicant., Solicitor General Griswold for respondents in opposition.
Below, See, Stewart.
Cited by 10 opinions | Published
C. A. 2d Cir. Application for writ of injunction or stay, presented to Mr. Justice Harlan, and by him referred to the Court, denied.
(See concurring memorandum of Mr. Justice Stewart and dissent of Mr. Justice Douglas below.)