Case Name: George A. HUNT, Jr., Selective Service No. 9-45-45-1035, Appellant, v. LOCAL BOARD NO. 197
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1971-02-05
Citations: 438 F.2d 1128
Docket Number: No. 18076
Parties: George A. HUNT, Jr., Selective Service No. 9-45-45-1035, Appellant, v. LOCAL BOARD NO. 197.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 438
Pages: 1128–1146

Head Matter:
George A. HUNT, Jr., Selective Service No. 9-45-45-1035, Appellant, v. LOCAL BOARD NO. 197.
No. 18076.
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Argued Feb. 3, 1970.
Reargued Oct. 13, 1970.
Decided Feb. 5, 1971.
Gibbons, Circuit Judge, concurred in result and filed opinion.
Hastie, Chief Judge, concurred in result and filed opinion.
Freedman, Circuit Judge, filed an opinion in which Seitz and Adams, Circuit Judges, joined.
Aldisert, Circuit Judge, dissented and filed an opinion in which Van Dusen, Circuit Judge, joined.
John David Egnal, Egnal and Egnal, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellant.
Robert V. Zener, Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., for appellee.
Before HASTIE, Chief Judge, and FREEDMAN, SEITZ, VAN DUSEN, ALDISERT, ADAMS and GIBBONS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
OPINION OF THE COURT
PER CURIAM:
For different reasons, stated in separate opinions, five judges constituting a majority of the court have concluded that the judgment of the district court dismissing the appellant's complaint cannot stand. Judges Freedman, Seitz and Adams think that the uncontested facts are such that we should not only reverse the dismissal of the complaint but also order that on remand judgment be entered for the appellant requiring that he be accorded selective service reclassification as III-A. Judges Hastie and Gibbons think that we should do no more than require that the district court consider and dispose of this controversy on its merits.
To achieve an otherwise lacking majority for a particular disposition of the appeal, Judges Freedman, Seitz and Adams join Judges Hastie and Gibbons in voting for the less comprehensive disposition; namely, reversal and remand for appropriate action on the merits of the controversy.
It may be that, in the light of the circumstances pointed out in our several opinions, the parties will be able to agree upon a consent judgment that will obviate the necessity for adversary proceedings in the district court.
The judgment will be reversed and the cause remanded for consideration and disposition on the merits,
. Cf. Screws v. United States, 1945, 325 U.S. 91, 65 S.Ct. 1031, 89 L.Ed. 1495.