Property · MBE-tested
UNITED STATES, Petitioner v. BOARD OF REVIEW NOS. 2, 1, 4, U. S. Army Judiciary, Respondents
17 C.M.A. 15037 C.M.R. 414·United States Court of Military Appeals·1967
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
UNITED STATES, Petitioner v BOARD OF REVIEW NOS. 2, 1, 4, U. S. Army Judiciary, Respondents
17 USCMA 150, 37 CMR 414
Miscellaneous Docket Nos. 67-4, 67-5, 67-6
July 21, 1967
Captain William R. Steinmetz argued the cause for Petitioner. With him on the brief were Colonel Peter S. Wondolowski, Lieutenant Colonel David Rarick, Major John F. Webb, Jr., and Captain Robert E. Davis.
Major Jack G. McKay argued the cause for Respondent.
Lieutenant Colonel Jacob Hagopian argued amicus curiae.
[MAJORITY — Pee Curiam:]
Opinion of the Court
Pee Curiam:
This action involves the same controversy as United States v DuBay, et al, 17 USCMA 147, 37 CMR 411, this day decided. The order of the board of review directing certain steps therein is vacated, and the board is instructed to follow the procedures outlined in United States v DuBay, supra.