Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Randolph v. HV and United States

Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces

Decided February 2, 2017No. 16-0678/CGPublished

1Concurrence

Judge RYAN,

concurring.

I join the majority opinion in full. Article 6b, Uniform. Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), grants the Courts of Criminal Appeal (CCA) jurisdiction to review certain interlocutory petitions by a victim for a writ of mandamus. 10 U.S.C. § 806b (2015). Because this is an Article 6b, UCMJ, case, and Congress limited review of Article 6b, UCMJ, petitions to the CCAs, we have no jurisdiction. EV v. United States, 76 M.J. 331, 334 (C.A.A.F. 2016).

I write separately to address the dissenters’ suggestions, Randolph v. HV and United States, 76 M.J. 27, 33-34, 34-35, 2017 WL 485883…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1949
  2. Christianson v. Colt Industries Operating Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1988
  3. Patterson v. McLean Credit UnionSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
  4. Central Bank of Denver, N. A. v. First Interstate Bank of Denver, N. A.Supreme Court of the United States · 1994
  5. Sheldon v. SillSupreme Court of the United States · 1850

10 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