Armann v. McKean

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that a military court gave full and fair consideration to the petitioner’s claims without holding oral argument and where the military court simply affirmed the lower court’s decision in one sentence that did not explicitly mention the claim at issue
• Burns “requires the federal habeas court to deny relief where the military courts provided full and fair consideration to the claim or claims asserted in the habeas petition.”
• full and fair review satisfied when military prisoner had sufficient opportunity to raise claim before court-martial and to argue claim on appeal to military appellate court, despite summary disposition of claim by military appellate court
• “Contrary to Armann’s assertions, the fact that the CAAF issued a summary order disposing of his case without noting his Grostefon submission does not equate with a finding that it did not fully and fairly consider his mental competency claim.”
• “We are not convinced that the Government's failure to file a brief in response to Armann’s competency claim means that the military courts failed to adequately consider the claim . . . . Watson did not establish full briefing by both sides as a prerequisite to satisfying Burns.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).