Citation network
Schlesinger Vs. Councilman
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Mar 25, 1975
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
- Relied / Followed
-
U.S. 738 (1975) U.S. Supreme Court Schlesinger v. CouncilmanSearch
-
U.S. 738 (1975) Schlesinger v. CouncilmanSearch
-
clause of Art. 76 does no more than describe the terminal point for proceedings within the court-martial system, Gusik v. SchilderSearch
-
dismiss the charges, contending that the court-martial lacked jurisdiction under this Court's decision in O'Callahan v. ParkerSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
affirmed, holding that the alleged offenses did not meet the tests for service connection set forth in O'Callahan v. ParkerSearch
-
supra, and elaborated in Relford v. U.SSearch
-
and, although normally we do not consider questions raised neither below nor in the petition, see United States v. RichardsonSearch
-
necessarily implicit in this case seemed sufficiently important to raise them sua sponte. See, e.g., Younger v. HarrisSearch
-
Duignan v. UnitedSearch
-
No contention is made that respondent's claim fails to assert a case arising under the Constitution. See O'Callahan v. ParkerSearch
-
U. S. 167 , 116 U. S. 177 (1886). See Hiatt v. BrownSearch
-
but historically they have not been the exclusive means of collateral attack. Nor were they the earliest. In Wise v. WithersSearch
-
Id. at 7 U. S. 337 . See Dynes v. HooverSearch
-
same principle the Court approved collateral attack in the form of backpay suits in the Court of Claims. E.g., Runkle v. UnitedSearch
-
court-martial would be void, and hence subject to collateral impeachment, at least by way of habeas. E.g., O'Callahan v. ParkerSearch
-
In Gusik v. SchilderSearch
-
have been available. Indeed, this availability was reiterated shortly before enactment of the Code. See Shapiro v. UnitedSearch
-
Douglas v. CitySearch
-
supra, at 401 U. S. 46 . See Dombrowski v. PfisterSearch
-
Ex parte Royall, 117 U. S. 241 , 117 U. S. 252 (1886). See Darr v. BurfordSearch
-
are similar to those that, underlie the requirement of exhaustion of administrative remedies. E.g., Myers v. BethlehemSearch
-
agency's ultimate decision will Page 420 U. S. 757 obviate the need for judicial intervention. E.g., McKart v. UnitedSearch
-
Toth v. QuarlesSearch
-
who would gain over time thorough familiarity with military problems. See Noyd v. BondSearch
-
not entertain habeas petitions by military prisoners unless all available military remedies have been exhausted. Gusik v. SchilderSearch
-
Page 420 U. S. 759 required exhaustion of remedies in the military system before allowing collateral relief. Toth v. QuarlesSearch
-
of judgment that often will turn on the precise set of facts in which the offense has occurred. See Relford v. U.SSearch
-
See Secretary of the Navy v. AvrechSearch
-
This provision was upheld last Term as against vagueness and First Amendment overbreadth challenges. Parker v. LevySearch
-
E.g., United States v. CastroSearch
-
United States v. AdamsSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Schlesinger v. CouncilmanSearch
-
Relford v. U.SSearch
-
the Constitution. See O'Callahan v. ParkerSearch
-
See Hiatt v. BrownSearch
-
In Wise v. WithersSearch
-
See Dynes v. HooverSearch
-
the Court of Claims. E.g., Runkle v. UnitedSearch
-
E.g., O'Callahan v. ParkerSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial