United States v. Collura
Cases that cite this one
15 later published cases cite this decision.
- Smith v. United States (4th Cir. 1945)
- Simuel Brent Schutz, Jr. v. United States (5th Cir. 1970)
- United States ex rel. Russell v. Lawrence (United States District Court for the Southern District of California 1944)
- United States v. Alfred Edward McGee (7th Cir. 1972)
- Michael Waldo Simmons v. United States (5th Cir. 1969)
- Estep v. United States (Supreme Court of the United States 1946)
- Billings v. Truesdell (Supreme Court of the United States 1944)
- United States v. James Robert Harstad (9th Cir. 1973)
- United States v. Daniel Clifford Whittenburg (10th Cir. 1972)
- United States v. Murray (D. Minn. 1970)
- United States v. Gutknecht (D. Minn. 1968)
- Jeffries v. United States (10th Cir. 1948)
- United States v. Anderson (Supreme Court of the United States 1946)
- United States v. Anderson (District Court, W.D. Washington 1945)
- In re Herman (District Court, N.D. Texas 1944)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
The appellant was convicted upon an indictment charging wilful failure to perform a duty required of him under the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix § 311, to-wit, failure to report for induction into the United States Army. In response to an order of his local draft board to report for induction, the appellant appeared at the induction station at the appointed hour but stated that he refused to be inducted unless given a guarantee against compulsory vaccination after he was in the army. He took the stand, and from his testimony it appears that he has long entertained a sincere conviction in opposition to compulsory vaccination. The district judge refused to consider the validity of the Army Regulations regarding vaccination and rightly restricted the issue to whether or not the appellant reported at the induction center prepared to be inducted into the army without qualification. Obviously the duty to report for induction means more than putting in an appearance at the induction station. The selectee must not only appear but must be ready to go through the process which constitutes induction into the army. Admittedly the appellant did not report for induction, but reported for the purpose of making a bargain with the military au *346 thorities and entering the army only if the terms agreed upon were satisfactory to his personal views as to vaccination. The trial was conducted with complete fairness and the appeal is without merit. Criticism of the indictment as insufficient to inform the appellant of the charge he had to meet is wholly groundless. Zuziak v. United States, 9 Cir., 119 F.2d 140, 141.
Judgment affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.