Tap any paragraph to write a margin note. Your notes collect in the Desk below the text and file under cases with @. The side-by-side margin rail opens on a larger screen.

David Greene v. United States

406 U.S. 977· U.S. Supreme Court
406 U.S. 977 92 S. Ct. 2425 32 L. Ed. 2d 677 David GREENE v. UNITED STATES. No. 71-6393. Supreme Court of the United States June 7, 1972 On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied. Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, dissenting. 1 This case involves an apparently lawless action by a Selective Service Board. The Regulations 1 provide: 2 'A majority of the members of the local board . . . shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business . . .. A majority of the members . . . who are present at any meeting . . . at which a quorum is present shall decide any question of classification . . .. 3 'Every member . . . present shall vote on every question or classification.' 4 While petitioner had been classified as 1A and was ordered to report for induction, 2 prior to the reporting date 3 two letters were submitted to the local board asking for reconsideration of petitioner's classification. The Board never considered the letters. The only decision was that of the chairman who talked only with the clerk of the Board. Whether the new presentation would satisfy the Regulations governing the reopening of a case can never be known because that is a decision that only the Board can make; and the Board never had a chance to reopen the classification or to keep it closed. 5 We talk much about law and order. But when he allow a Selective Service Board to act lawlessly and beyond the law, we embark upon a course of conduct that inflames an area already charged with emotions. Those charged with the responsibility of disposing of the lives and liberties of men should be the most meticulous in observing the Regulations which govern them. 6 I would grant this petition and set the case for argument. 1 32 C.F.R. § 1604.56. 2 Petitioner was convicted of failure to report for induction and his defense was the Board's failure to follow the Regulations. 3 The order was mailed March 13, 1970, directing him to report on April 21, 1970.

Public-domain opinion of the United States Supreme Court, reproduced from the court record (U.S. Reports). Historical text may contain OCR artifacts. Provided for reference — not legal advice.

★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

"If you don't know your rights, you don't have any."

Marginalia · a citizen's law index
A research desk, not legal advice. Always read the cited source before relying on a summary.
Questions or an issue? support@self-law.org
disclaimerMarginalia is a research index, not a law firm. Nothing on this site is legal, tax, or financial advice and no attorney–client relationship is formed by using it. Statutes, regulations, and case law change; summaries, search results, AI output, and member posts may be incomplete, out of date, or wrong. Any interpretation drawn from material on this site should be validated by a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction before you act on it.