32 C.F.R. § 1602.4
Area office
The Selective Service Office which is responsible for all administrative and operational support for the one or more local boards within its jurisdiction.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9
cases, 1968–1970 · leading case: United States v. Eisdorfer, 299 F. Supp. 975 (E.D.N.Y 1969).
United States v. Eisdorfer, 299 F. Supp. 975 (E.D.N.Y 1969). “” See 32 C.F.R. §§ 1602.4 , 1641.2 (a), 1642.1, 1642.”
Marc Belding Anderson v. Gen. Lewis B. Hershey, Nat'l Dir., Selective Serv. Sys., 410 F.2d 492 (6th Cir. 1969). “32 C.F.R. 1602.4 defines 'Delinquent' as 'a person who fails or neglects to perform any duty required of him under the provisions of the selective service law.”
United States v. David Earl Gutknecht, 406 F.2d 494 (8th Cir. 1969). “The district court found that the delinquency order was based upon the defendant’s violation of the regulation that he have the required cards in his possession at all times.”
Breen v. Selective Serv. Local Bd. No. 16, Bridgeport, Conn., 284 F. Supp. 749 (D. Conn. 1968). “4 of the regulations ( 32 C.F.R. § 1602.4 (1967)) defines a “delinquent” as “a person required to be registered under the selective service law who fails or neglects to perform any duty required of him under the provisions of the selective service law.”
United States v. Bruinier, 293 F. Supp. 666 (D. Or. 1968). “” Bruinier's failure to obey the induction order he did not receive cannot make him a delinquent with a “continuing duty from day to day to report for induction.”
Turley v. Selective Serv. Sys. Orange Cty., Ca., Local Bd. No. 134, 301 F. Supp. 845 (C.D. Cal. 1969). “The term does not appear elsewhere in the statute. The Selective Service System Regulations define a delinquent as one required to be registered under the selective service law who “fails or neglects to perform any duty required of him under the provisions of the selective…”
United States v. Gutknecht, 283 F. Supp. 945 (D. Minnesota 1968). “2) and his valid notice of classification (SSS Form No. 110) in his possession at all times.”
United States v. Trimble, 314 F. Supp. 186 (E.D. Pa. 1970). “” ( 32 C.F.R. § 1602.4 ) In April of 1967 when Trimble’s Local Board re-classified him 1-A, it had open to it an alternative and lawful means of dealing with the registrant’s failure to supply requested information.”
Linzer v. Selective Serv. Local Bd. No. 64, 293 F. Supp. 772 (E.D.N.Y 1968). “32 CFR §§ 1602.4 1642.1-.46 (relating to the declaration of a registrant delinquent, the reclassification of delinquents and the induction of delinquents); 32 CFR § 1617.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.