Legal Opinion

United States v. Hock

United States Court of Military Appeals

Decided September 28, 1990No. CMR Nos. 77-1595, 81-0674, 77-1810, 77-0993, 78-0231, 78-1647, 78-0637, 78-1457, 81-3143, 77-1520, 77-0631, 80-1161, 77-1724, 79-0117 and 79-1737; USCMA Dkt. Nos. 63621/MC, 63543/NA, 63549/MC, 63591/MC, 63813/MC, 63817/MC, 64028/NA, 63897/NA, 63535/NA, 63242/NA, 63223/MC, 63212/NA, 63364/NA, 63280/NA and 63270/NAPublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Per curiam

All of these cases involve extensive delay between the time of the decision of the United States Navy Court of Military Review and the filing of a petition for grant of review with this Court. Yet all of the petitions were filed with this Court in a timely fashion following recent notice to each appellant of the right to file such petition. Accordingly, in each of these cases, the issue has arisen as to whether in some way the rights of an appellant were prejudiced because of the lengthy intervening delay. Cf. United States v. Dunbar, 31 MJ 70 (CMA 1990).

In the belief that similar problems…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. United States v. DunbarUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1990
  2. United States v. BinghamUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1977
  3. United States v. GreenUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1978
  4. United States v. LarneardUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1977
  5. United States v. RozyckiUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1977

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Diaz v. The Judge Advocate General of the NavyCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces · 2003
  2. United States v. ArriagaCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces · 2011
  3. United States v. McCallumU.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Military Review · 1990
  4. United States v. ArriagaCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces · 2011

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

Powered by the Exa API