Legal Opinion

Orloff v. Willoughby

Supreme Court of the United States

Decided April 6, 1953No. 444PublishedCited by 940 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Jackson

Petitioner presents a novel case. Admitting that he was lawfully inducted into the Army, he asks the courts, by habeas corpus, to discharge him because he has not been assigned to the specialized duties nor given the commissioned rank to which he claims to be entitled by the circumstances of his induction. The petitioner had passed the ages liable to induction except under the Universal Military Training and Service Act, 50 U. S. C. App. § 454 (i)(1)(A), which authorizes conscription of certain “medical and allied specialist categories.” The statute sets up a priority system for calling such…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. United States v. MouatSupreme Court of the United States · 1888
  2. Orloff v. Willoughby, Colonel, U.S. ArmyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1952

3Cited by940 opinions

  1. Buckley v. ValeoSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  2. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1978
  3. Department of the Air Force v. RoseSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  4. Parker v. LevySupreme Court of the United States · 1974
  5. Munaf v. GerenSupreme Court of the United States · 2008

935 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API