EV v. United States
Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces
1Opinion of the Court
Judge STUCKY
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The writ of mandamus “is a ‘drastic and extraordinary’ remedy ‘reserved for really extraordinary causes.’” Cheney v. United States Dist. Court for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 380, 124 S.Ct. 2576, 159 L.Ed.2d 459 (2004) (quoting Ex parte Fahey, 332 U.S. 258, 259-60, 67 S.Ct. 1558, 91 L.Ed. 2041 (1947)). It is this extraordinary remedy that EV (Appellant) seeks in the case at hand under the auspices of Article 6b(e)(1), Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. § 806b(e)(l) (2012). However, in light of the plain language of that article and the…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Ex Parte McCardleSupreme Court of the United States · 1869
- Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. v. HensonSupreme Court of the United States · 2002
- Cheney v. United States District Court for District of ColumbiaSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
- Hartford Underwriters Insurance v. Union Planters Bank, N. A.Supreme Court of the United States · 2000
- Ex Parte FaheySupreme Court of the United States · 1947
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by22 opinions
- Randolph v. HV and United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces · 2017
- Ali Hamza Ahmad al Bahlul v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2023
- United States v. HerrmannCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces · 2017
- United States v. TuckerCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces · 2017
- United States v. CarterCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces · 2017
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.