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.
  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.
instruction: What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to identify the type of decision made by the court among the following: Consider "opinion of the court (orally argued)" if the court decided the case by a signed opinion and the case was orally argued. For the 1791-1945 terms, the case need not be orally argued, but a justice must be listed as delivering the opinion of the Court. Consider "per curiam (no oral argument)" if the court decided the case with an opinion but without hearing oral arguments. For the 1791-1945 terms, the Court (or reporter) need not use the term "per curiam" but rather "The Court [said],""By the Court," or "By direction of the Court." Consider "decrees" in the infrequent type of decisions where the justices will typically appoint a special master to take testimony and render a report, the bulk of which generally becomes the Court's decision. This type of decision usually arises under the Court's original jurisdiction and involves state boundary disputes. Consider "equally divided vote" for cases decided by an equally divided vote, for example when a justice fails to participate in a case or when the Court has a vacancy. Consider "per curiam (orally argued)" if no individual justice's name appears as author of the Court's opinion and the case was orally argued. Consider "judgment of the Court (orally argued)" for formally decided cases (decided the case by a signed opinion) where less than a majority of the participating justices agree with the opinion produced by the justice assigned to write the Court's opinion.