Search for: "Stucki "
Results 61 - 80
of 257
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
28 Apr 2012, 9:09 am
Perez, 66 M.J. 164, 165 (C.A.A.F. 2008) (Stucky, J. concurring) (“A convening authority is not required to correct legal errors … But where he does so, his action must be guided by the same rules applicable to appellate authorities”); United States v. [read post]
21 Apr 2012, 7:10 pm
Judge Stucky has authored 6; Judge Ryan has authored 5; both Chief Judge Baker and Judge Erdmann have authored 4. [read post]
6 Apr 2012, 1:19 am
As Judge Stucky said during a question-and-answer session following oral argument at the University of Washington Law School yesterday, 99 percent of the cases CAAF hears involve active-duty service members who have been convicted at a court-martial; U.S. v. [read post]
22 Mar 2012, 5:00 pm
., March 22, 2012) Judge Erdmann wrote for the court, with the Chief Judge writing a separate opinion, in which Judge Stucky joined, concurring in part. [read post]
14 Mar 2012, 6:32 pm
Judge Stucky, noting that the Supreme Court established a “regime of national uniformity on this particular question,” asked, “why should the Code be any different? [read post]
13 Mar 2012, 6:58 pm
Judge Stucky, writing for a unanimous court in United States v. [read post]
12 Mar 2012, 2:18 pm
Have I mentioned recently how much I love reading Judge Stucky’s opinions? [read post]
3 Mar 2012, 6:59 am
I leave it to others to explain why Judge Stucky’s common-sense approach is unworkable under the UCMJ. [read post]
1 Mar 2012, 7:50 pm
Judge Stucky’s opinion is a reminder to avoid fixating on an error, and to look instead to the prejudice and the appropriate remedy. [read post]
1 Mar 2012, 6:56 pm
In a 3-2 decision, Judge Stucky, joined by Judge Ryan and Senior Judge Cox, rejects the appellant’s claim that California law regarding his capacity to contract is controlling, and the court adopts the position articulated by the government at oral argument that the constructive enlistment provisions of Article 2(c) apply to this case. [read post]
29 Feb 2012, 4:06 pm
Judge Stucky writes for the court, and three others, CJ Baker writes in concurrence with the result. [read post]
22 Feb 2012, 10:47 pm
But Judge Stucky called this “cold comfort for the CA. [read post]
21 Feb 2012, 2:42 pm
Stucky writes for the court and for Ryan and Cox, and Baker writes a dissent for himself and Erdmann. [read post]
21 Feb 2012, 9:03 am
It is this last analysis that draws the only objection in Judge Stucky’s concurring opinion. [read post]
20 Feb 2012, 5:32 pm
Judge Stucky, joined by Judge Ryan and Senior Judge Cox, rejected the appellant’s argument “that his status changed from sentenced prisoner to pretrial confinee as a matter of law thirty days after the sentence from his first court-martial was set aside. [read post]
13 Feb 2012, 2:13 pm
Judge Stucky concurred in the result. [read post]
2 Feb 2012, 2:50 pm
Judge Stucky wrote for the majority. [read post]
13 Jan 2012, 11:27 pm
Later, in an exchange that vividly illustrates (what has been described to me by one appellate practitioner as) the need for an integrated “government” position in military justice matters, Judge Stucky asked (at 31:45) if it’s the government’s position that the court should “simply disregard the manual” with respect to this issue. [read post]
12 Jan 2012, 8:12 pm
In the words of Judge Stucky (at 3:25 of the argument audio): “the cat’s out of the bag once it’s tested. [read post]
22 Dec 2011, 2:49 pm
This raised the question of prejudice, as both Judge Ryan and Judge Stucky tried to identify how the appellant suffererd prejudice to a substantial right. [read post]
