Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorRonald, Lauren M.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2013-02-12T21:58:38Z
dc.date.available2013-02-12T21:58:38Z
dc.date.issued1973en_US
dc.identifier.citation6 Creighton L. Rev. 393 (1972-1973)en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10504/38740
dc.description.abstractFIRST PARAGRAPH(S)|William Robison was classified as a conscientious objector by the local selective service board in Fairfax, Virginia. Pursuant to the War and National Defense Act, he was ordered to perform alternate service at a hospital in Boston, Massachusetts. After serving two years, Robison applied for educational assistance under the Veterans Readjustment Benefits Act. The Veterans Administration informed Robison that he was ineligible for benefits, since alternate service was not "active duty", Robison subsequently requested the United States District Court in Massachusetts to issue declaratory judgments that: (1) the veterans educational benefits legislation violates the United States Constitution; and (2) plaintiff and the members of his class were eligible to receive educational benefits. Robison moved for summary judgment, contending that the exclusion of alternate servicemen was an invidious discrimination constituting both a denial of due process under the fifth amendment and a violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the first amendment...en_US
dc.publisherCreighton University School of Lawen_US
dc.titleConstitutional Law - Due Process - Conscientious Objectors, as Alternate Servicemen, Are Entitled to the Same Veterans Educational Benefits Received by Regular Servicemen - Robison v. Johnson, 352 F. Supp.848 (D. Mass. 1973)en_US
dc.typeJournal Articleen_US
dc.rights.holderCreighton Universityen_US
dc.description.volume6en_US
dc.publisher.locationOmaha, Nebraskaen_US
dc.title.workCreighton Law Reviewen_US
dc.description.note1972-1973en_US
dc.description.pages393en_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record