Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Anthony Emma v. Dewitt C. Armstrong, Iii, Brigadier General, United States Army Commanding General, Fort Devens, Massachusetts

Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

Decided February 1, 1973No. 72-1136Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

COFFIN, Chief-Judge

(dissenting in part).

I have no difficulty in agreeing with the court that habeas corpus jurisdiction lies in the district court. I have more difficulty in agreeing that exhaustion of petitioner’s military administrative remedies is required before we can give any relief at all, even if he were to present a substantial claim that the military’s jurisdiction over him had terminated, when- a substantial challenge to the military’s right to try a serviceman for a non-serviee-conneeted crime by court-martial, O’Callahan v. Parker, 395 U.S. 258, 89 S.Ct. 1683, 23 L.Ed.2d 291…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. O'Callahan v. ParkerSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
  2. Parisi v. DavidsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  3. Noyd v. BondSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
  4. Lyle v. KincaidDistrict Court, M.D. Florida · 1972
  5. Richard G. Beaty v. Major General T. A. Kenan, Commanding Officer, United States Army Training Center, Ford Ord, CaliforniaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1969

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API