Brooks v. The D. W. Lenox

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a military court of criminal appeals has “awesome, plenary, de novo power of review . . . to, indeed, ‘substitute its judgment’ for that of the military judge” and need not apply deferential standards of review when it deems such deference inappropriate
• holding that a military court of criminal appeals has “awesome, plenary, de novo power of review . . . to, indeed, ‘substitute its judgment’ for that of the military judge” and need not apply deferential standards of review when it deems such deference inappropriate
• holding that a military court of criminal appeals has “awesome, plenary, de novo power of review . . . to, indeed, ‘substitute its judgment’ for that of the military judge” and need not apply deferential standards of review when it deems such deference inappropriate
• referring to the Article 66(c), UCMJ, power of the lower court as an “awesome, plenary, de novo power of review”
• recognizing CCAs’ “awesome, plenary, de novo power of review”
• describing then-Article 66(c) as an “awesome, plenary, de novo power of review” that author- izes a service court to “ ‘substitute its judgment’ for that of the military judge”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).