Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

O'Callahan Vs. Parker

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jun 02, 1969

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

43 entries 9 linked 34 unlinked
Show
  1. Grisham Vs. Hagan US Supreme Court · Jan 18, 1960
  2. Kurtz Vs. Moffitt US Supreme Court · Nov 23, 1885
  3. Dynes Vs. Hoover US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1857
  4. Coleman Vs. Tennessee US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1878
  5. Smith Vs. Whitney US Supreme Court · Jan 04, 1886
  6. Johnson Vs. Sayre US Supreme Court · May 06, 1895
  7. Mcelroy Vs. Guagliardo US Supreme Court · Jan 18, 1960
  8. Kinsella Vs. Singleton US Supreme Court · Jan 18, 1960
  9. United States Vs. Voorhees US Supreme Court · May 19, 1890
  10. U.S. 258 (1969) U.S. Supreme Court O'Callahan v. Parker
    Search
  11. U.S. 258 (1969) O'Callahan v. Parker
    Search
  12. Those civil rights are the constitutional stakes in the present litigation. What we wrote in Toth v. Quarles
    Search
  13. the genuine need for special military courts, has recognized their propriety in their appropriate sphere, e.g., Burns v. Wilson
    Search
  14. Toth v. Quarles
    Search
  15. trial is that the trap of Article 134 may be avoided by a declaratory judgment proceeding or otherwise. See Dombrowski v. Pfister
    Search
  16. and the trial. Thus, discharged soldiers cannot be court-martialed for offenses committed while in service. Toth v. Quarles
    Search
  17. U. S. 11 . Similarly, neither civilian employees of the Armed Forces overseas, McElroy v. Guagliardo
    Search
  18. nor civilian dependents of military personnel accompanying them overseas, Kinsella v. Singleton
    Search
  19. of this Court suggest any such interpretation. The Government emphasizes that these decisions -- especially Kinsella v. Singleton
    Search
  20. usually only senior enlisted personnel, i.e., noncommissioned officers, are selected. See United States v. Crawford
    Search
  21. evidence and witnesses is, to a significant extent, dependent on the approval of the prosecution. United States v. Harvey
    Search
  22. See Reid v. Covert
    Search
  23. court-martial jurisdiction is extensively reviewed in MR. JUSTICE BLACK's opinion for a plurality of the Court in Reid v. Covert
    Search
  24. Ex parte Mason, 105 U. S. 696 , 105 U. S. 701 . See also Smith v. Whitney
    Search
  25. How. 65. Johnson. v. Sayre
    Search
  26. Id. at 158 U. S. 114 . And see Thompson v. Willingham
    Search
  27. Writing for a plurality of the Court in Reid v. Covert
    Search
  28. Id. at 354 U. S. 22 -23. In Kinsella v. Singleton
    Search
  29. Grafton v. United
    Search
  30. and not the Judiciary, to determine the appropriate subject matter jurisdiction of courts-martial. See Coleman v. Tennessee
    Search
  31. and noted that even this limiting principle was not strictly observed. Id. at 725, 730-732. And in Grafton v. United
    Search
  32. United States v. Voorhees
    Search
  33. United States v. Gravitt
    Search
  34. U.S. Supreme Court O'Callahan v. Parker
    Search
  35. See Dombrowski v. Pfister
    Search
  36. See United States v. Crawford
    Search
  37. United States v. Harvey
    Search
  38. Thompson v. Willingham
    Search
  39. In Kinsella v. Singleton
    Search
  40. See Coleman v. Tennessee
    Search
  41. United States v. Gravitt
    Search
  42. Reid v. Covert
    Search
  43. Burns v. Wilson
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial