Notes of Decisions
Richard E. Brown v. United States, 508 F.2d 618 (3d Cir. 1975).
· cites it 6× “JAMES HUNTER, III, Circuit Judge: This is a class action brought by individuals who were convicted by special courts-martial that were convened by officers in the United States Navy and Marine Corps under what the United States Court of Military Appeals subsequently held was an…”
United States v. Wiesen, 57 M.J. 48 (C.A.A.F. 2002).
· cites it 2× “23(a)(3), UCMJ, 10 USC § 823 (a)(3). Based on the size of 9 United States v.”
United States v. Blaylock, 15 M.J. 190 (C.M.A. 1983).
· cites it 2× “Likewise, in the case at bar, we hold that, since General Palmer, the officer exercising general court-martial jurisdiction, was empowered by Article 23(a)(1), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 823 (a)(1), to convene special courts-martial, no “jurisdictional” error existed — even if he…”
Brown v. United States, 365 F. Supp. 328 (E.D. Pa. 1973).
· cites it 5× “This special court-martial was ostensibly convened pursuant to the authority of 10 U.S.C. § 823 (a)(7) which grants special courts-martial convening authority to “the commanding officer or officer in charge of any .”
United States v. Jette, 25 M.J. 16 (C.M.A. 1987).
“We hold that Colonel Kimball was authorized by Article 23(a)(4), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 823 (a)(4), to act as a convening authority *17 in this case.”
United States v. Jeter, 35 M.J. 442 (C.M.A. 1992).
“23(b), UCMJ, 10 USC § 823 (b) (applies a similar provision to special courts-martial).”
United States v. Hardy, 4 M.J. 20 (C.M.A. 1977).
“So, our inquiry narrows to whether the general court-martial convening authority had the power to order his subordinate to withdraw a case from an inferior court-martial to which that subordinate had already referred it through a valid exercise of the latter’s authority under…”
United States v. Yates, 28 M.J. 60 (C.M.A. 1989).
“23(a)(7), UCMJ, 10 USC § 823 (a)(7). True, the convening authority’s power in this case is based on a similar statutory provision, Art.”
United States v. Caputo, 18 M.J. 259 (C.M.A. 1984).
“I therefore can only record my own doubts and misgivings and strongly urge Congress to clarify its intentions in this highly significant area of military law.”
United States v. Ortiz, 16 C.M.A. 127 (1966).
· cites it 2× “the Commanding Officer, 2d Bridge Company, Force Troops, Fleet Marine Force, Atlantic, did not possess the inherent authority under Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 23, 10 USC § 823 , to appoint a special court-martial, nor had the Secretary of the Navy authorized him,…”
United States v. Voorhees, 50 M.J. 494 (C.A.A.F. 1999).
“Article 23, UCMJ, 10 USC § 823 , delineates those commanding officers or officers in charge who are authorized to convene a special court-martial.”
United States v. Ridley, 22 M.J. 43 (C.M.A. 1986).
“ARY REVIEW CORRECT IN CONCLUDING THAT APPELLANT’S SPECIAL COURT-MARTIAL LACKED JURISDICTION BECAUSE THE CONVENING AUTHORITY WAS JUNIOR IN RANK TO THE ACCUSER WHERE THE ACCUSER, WHO HAD NO AUTHORITY TO CONVENE COURTS-MARTIAL, COMMANDED A SUBORDINATE UNIT ATTACHED TO THE CONVENING…”
10 U.S.C. § 823(b): 1 case
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.