Supreme Court of the United States, 1953

Ward v. United States

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided February 2, 1953

344 U.S. 924; 73 S. Ct. 494 (United States Reports)

Counsel

John M. Coe and Ralph E. Powe argued the cause for petitioner., With them on the brief was James T. Wright. John R. Benney argued the cause for the United States., With him on the brief were Solicitor General Cummings, Assistant Attorney General Murray, Beatrice Rosenberg and Carl H. Imlay.

Cases that cite this one

16 later published cases cite this decision. The 15 that cite it most often are listed here.

United States v. William Cullen Secoy (6th Cir. 1973)
Michael Waldo Simmons v. United States (5th Cir. 1969)
Marc Belding Anderson v. General Lewis B. Hershey, National Director, Selective Service System (6th Cir. 1969)
United States v. Walther (District Court, E.D. Wisconsin 1975)
United States v. Yingling (District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania 1974)
United States v. Blakely (5th Cir. 1974)
United States v. Seyed Noureddin Mostafavi-Kashani (9th Cir. 1972)
United States v. Willis Charles Jackson (9th Cir. 1972)
United States v. Reeves (United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida 1971)
Simuel Brent Schutz, Jr. v. United States (5th Cir. 1970)
United States v. Robert Thomas Ebey, Jr. (10th Cir. 1970)
Richard Daniel Kokotan v. United States (10th Cir. 1969)
United States v. Valentine (District Court, D. Puerto Rico 1968)
Venus v. United States (Supreme Court of the United States 1961)
Venus v. United States (Supreme Court of the United States 1961)

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 of the Court

Per Curiam:

The indictment in this case charged that between the dates of March 30, 1951, and May 31, 1951, petitioner “knowingly” failed to furnish his local Selective Service Board with a correct address where mail might be delivered to him. 50 U. S. C. App. §§ 462 (a), 465 (b); 32 CFR § 1641.3. The record does not support the charge that, during this period, there was deliberate purpose on the part of petitioner not to comply with the Selective Service Act or the regulation issued thereunder. Accordingly, the decision below is reversed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.