# Hammond v. Lenfest

> Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · June 10, 1968 · 398 F.2d 705

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8879169

## Case

- **Full name:** Charles A. HAMMOND, SN USNR R, 697 13 52, Appellant-Petitioner v. H. F. LENFEST, USN, Commanding Officer, USS Coates Oscar Parker, Captain USN, Commanding Officer U. S. Naval Station, Brooklyn, New York R. T. Whitaker, Rear Admiral USN, Commandant, Third Naval District, New York, New York, Appellees-Respondents
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
- **Decided:** June 10, 1968
- **Citations:** 398 F.2d 705; 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 6590
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** On rehearing
- **Judges:** Friendly, Kaufman
- **Cited by:** 189 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8879169

## Opinion text

On Petition for Rehearing
PER CURIAM:
On this petition for rehearing, we have been advised that the armed services have recently adopted new regulations, not previously brought to the attention of this court, dealing with the administrative discharge of conscientious objectors from the armed services. See United States ex rel. Mankiewicz v. Ray, 399 F.2d 900 (2d Cir. 1968). In light of these new regulations, which make major improvements in the procedures to be followed by applicants for conscientious objector discharges, we believe that the interests of justice and a proper regard for the relationship of the armed services and the federal courts would best be served by sending the case back to the Department of the Navy with directions that Hammond’s application be processed in accordance with the new regulations. We, therefore, remand the case to the District Court to return the matter to the Naval authorities and, in view of the disposition of Hammond’s application for a discharge, for whatever further proceedings may prove necessary not inconsistent with the opinion of this court.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8879169. Public record. Not legal advice.