Cluster 1492289

Id. at 49 ; see also Texas Acorn v. Texas Area 5 Health Systems Agency, Inc., 559 F.2d 1019, 1023 (5th Cir. 1977) (benefit that plaintiffs would receive as a result of adequate representation on the board of directors of a public health agency); Podrazik v. Blum, 479 F.Supp. 182, 188 (N.D.N.Y.1979) (right to own unencumbered property), aff’d. mem., 622 F.2d 575 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 922 , 100 S.Ct. 1860 , 64 L.Ed.2d 277 (1980); State v. Holy Spirit Ass’n. for Wor…

C.1972); Boyd v. Clark, 287 F.Supp. 561, 564 (S.D.N.Y.1968) (three-judge court), aff’d on other grounds, 393 U.S. 316 , 89 S.Ct. 553 , 21 L.Ed.2d 511 , rehearing denied, 393 U.S. 1112 , 89 S.Ct. 852 , 21 L.Ed.2d 812 (1969).

Local Bd. No. 16, 372 F.2d 817 , 826 (2d Cir. 1967); Spock v. David, 469 F.2d 1047 (3d Cir. 1972), at 8; McGaw v. Farrow, 472 F.2d 952 (4th Cir. 1973), at 6; Goldsmith v. Sutherland, 426 F.2d 1395, 1397 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 960 , 91 S.Ct. 353 , 27 L.Ed.2d 270 (1970); Giancana v. Johnson, 335 F.2d 366, 369 (7th Cir. 1964), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 1001 , 85 S.Ct. 718 , 13 L.Ed.2d 702 (1965); Stinson v. Finch, 317 F.Supp. 581, 586 (N.D.Ga.1970); Boyd v. Clark, 287 …

There are no words in the law, which by any just interpretation can be held to * * * authorize us to take cognizance of cases to which no test of money value can be applied.’ 46 U.S. at 120 .”, Boyd v. Clark, 287 F.Supp. 561, 564 (S.D.N.Y. 1968), aff'd without consideration of the jurisdictional question, 393 U.S. 316 , 89 S.Ct. 553 , 21 L.Ed.2d 511 (1969).

Neither of these purposes, appellants insist, would be served by denying jurisdiction in the instant case 3 See Wolff v. Selective Service Local Board No. 16, 372 F.2d 817, 826 (2d Cir. 1967); Fein v. Selective Service System Local Board No. 7, 430 F.2d 376, 380 (2d Cir. 1970) (dissenting opinion); Giancana v. Johnson, 335 F.2d 366, 371 (7th Cir. 1965) (dissenting opinion); Murray v. Vaughn, 300 F.Supp. 688 (D.R.I.1969); Boyd v. Clark, 287 F.Supp. 561, 567 (S.D.N.Y.1968) (di…

See Murray v. Vaughn, 300 F.Supp. 688, 695-696 (D.R.I.1969); West End Neighborhood Corp. v. Stans, 312 F.Supp. 1066, 1067-1068 (D.D.C.1970); Faulkner v. Clifford, 289 F.Supp. 895, 899-901 (E.D.N.Y.1968); Boyd v. Clark, 287 F.Supp. 561, 567-569 (S.D.N.Y.1968) (Edelstein, J., dissenting); but cf. Oestereich v. Selective Serv.

Curtiss v. Haviland, 297 F. 431 (2d Cir. 1924); 1 Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 0.92[5] (2d ed. 1964)." 28 Boyd v. Clark, 287 F.Supp. 561, 564 (S.D.N.Y.1968), (three-judge court), aff'd on another issue, 393 U.S. 316 , 89 S.Ct. 553 , 21 L.Ed.2d 511 (1969) (footnotes omitted).

Curtiss v. Haviland, 297 F. 431 (2d Cir. 1924); 1 Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 0.92[5] (2d ed. 1964).” Boyd v. Clark, 287 F.Supp. 561, 564 (S.D.N.Y.1968), (three-judge court), aff’d on another issue, 393 U.S. 316 , 89 S.Ct. 553 , 21 L.Ed.2d 511 (1969) (footnotes omitted).

Boyd v. Clark, 287 F.Supp. 561 at 567 (S.D.N.Y. 1968) (Edelstein, J., dissenting), judgment aff’d. but jurisdictional amount question expressly left open, 393 U.S. 316 , 89 S.Ct. 553 , 21 L.Ed.2d 511 (Jan. 13, 1969); Giancana v. Johnson, 335 F.2d 366 (7th Cir. 1964) (Swygert, J., dissenting), cert. den., 379 U.S. 1001 , 85 S.Ct. 718 , 13 L.Ed.2d 702 (1965).

See Boyd v. Clark, 287 F.Supp. 561 (three judge court) (S.D.N.Y.1968), aff’d on other grounds 393 U.S. 316 , 89 S.Ct. 553 , 21 L.Ed.2d 511 (1968).

See Boyd v. Clark, 287 F.Supp. 561 (three judge court) (S.D.N.Y.1968), aff'd on other grounds 393 U.S. 316 , 89 S.Ct. 553 , 21 L.Ed.2d 511 (1968). 25 LUMBARD, Chief Judge (dissenting). 26 I dissent. 27 After lengthy correspondence, two personal interviews, and extensive personal testimonials, Dr. Fein was granted conscientious objector status by his local board.

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).

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).

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 excl…

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. .