Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Contracts · MBE-tested
KOLDEN v. SELECTIVE SERVICE LOCAL BOARD NO. 4
397 U.S. 4725 L. Ed. 2d 33·Supreme Court of the United States·1970
Mr. JüíStice Harlan reverse these cases and remand them on the basis of his concurring opinion in Breen v. Selective Service Board, 396 U. S., at 468, and the Court’s opinion in Gutknecht v. United States, 396 U. S. 295.
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
KOLDEN v. SELECTIVE SERVICE LOCAL BOARD NO. 4
No. 70.
Decided February 24, 1970
Melvin L. Wulf, Chester Bruvold, and Lynn Costner for petitioner in No. 70. John J. Abt for petitioner in No. 73. Stanley Faulkner for petitioner in No. 164. Mr. Wulf for petitioner in No. 183. Robert Eugene Smith for petitioner in No. 331. Sheldon M. Meizlish for petitioners in No. 449.
Solicitor General Grisioold, Assistant Attorney General Ruckelshaus, Morton Hollander, and Ralph A. Fine for respondents in Nos. 70, 164, and 183. Solicitor General Grisioold, Assistant Attorney General Ruckelshaus, and Mr. Hollander for respondents in No. 73. Solicitor General Griswold for respondents in Nos. 331 and 449.
Together with No. 73, Chaikin v. Selective Service Local Board 66 et al.; No. 164, Faulkner v. Laird, Secretary of Defense, et al.; No. 183, Osher v. Selective Service Local Board No. 6 et al., petitions for writs of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; No. 331, Kraus v. Selective Service Local 25 et al., on petition for writ of certiorari to the States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit; and No. 449, Anderson et al. v. Hershey, National Director, Selective Service et al., on petition for writ of certiorari to the United States of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam]
Per Curiam
The petitions for writs of certiorari are granted, judgments are vacated and the cases are remanded to the respective United States Courts of Appeals for further consideration in light of Breen v. Selective Service Board, 396 U. S. 460.
Mr. JüíStice Harlan reverse these cases and remand them on the basis of his concurring opinion in Breen v. Selective Service Board, 396 U. S., at 468, and the Court’s opinion in Gutknecht v. United States, 396 U. S. 295.