10 U.S.C. § 1508

Judicial review

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 10 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a)Right of Review.—A person who is the primary next of kin (or the previously designated person) of a person who is the subject of a finding described in subsection (b) may obtain judicial review in a United States district court of that finding, but only on the basis of a claim that there is information that could affect the status of the missing person’s case that was not adequately considered during the administrative review process under this chapter. Any such review shall be as provided in section 706 of title 5.(b)Findings for Which Judicial Review May Be Sought.—Subsection (a) applies to the following findings:(1) A finding by a board appointed under section 1504 or 1505 of this title that a missing person is dead.(2) A finding by a board appointed under section 1509 of this title that confirms that a missing person formerly declared dead is in fact dead.(c)Subsequent Review.—Appeals from a decision of the district court shall be taken to the appropriate United States court of appeals and to the Supreme Court as provided by law.(Added Pub. L. 104–106, div. A, title V, § 569(b)(1), Feb. 10, 1996, 110 Stat. 348.)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1946–2023 · leading case: Patterson v. Def. POW/MIA Acct. Agency, 343 F. Supp. 3d 637 (W.D. Tex. 2018).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Patterson v. Def. POW/MIA Acct. Agency, 343 F. Supp. 3d 637 (W.D. Tex. 2018). · cites it 3× “10 U.S.C. § 1508 ; see also 10 U.S.C. §§ 1504 , 1505.”

Ex Parte Smith, 72 F. Supp. 935 (M.D. Penn. 1947). · cites it 2× “” 21 and Article of War 37, 10 U.S.C.A. § 1508 , 22 as a guide for reviewing and confirming • authorities provides as to Courts-Martial that errors complained of must have “injuriously affected the substantial rights of an accused.”

United States v. Berry, 1 C.M.A. 235 (1952). “In this connection, therefore, it becomes necessary to consider the terms of Article of War 37, 10 USC § 1508 . This Article sought to provide for the area of military judicial administration the substance of the “harmless error” statute found in other federal and much state…”

Hicks v. Hiatt, 64 F. Supp. 238 (M.D. Penn. 1946). “Article 37 of the Articles of War, 10 U.S.C.A. § 1508 , and paragraph S7.b. of the Courts-Martial Manual vest a sound legal discretion in the reviewing authority to the end that substantial justice may be done.”

United States v. Leslie, 9 M.J. 646 (1980). “794 ); 10 U.S.C. § 1508 . Thus, this Article forms the predicate for any present reviewing authority to sustain a finding of guilty, even though error has been committed, when it can be determined that the error does not materially prejudice the substantial rights of the accused.”

Wallace v. United States Army (D. Neb. 2023). · cites it 4× “10 U.S.C.A. § 1508 . Because the MSPA only provides for judicial review under limited circumstances, Eakin, 2013 WL 12394349 , at *2, the Court must first consider whether it has subject-matter jurisdiction to consider Wallace’s claim under 10 U.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.