David L. Bowling v. The United States

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the Claims Court has limited jurisdiction to review a court-martial judgment if presented as “a collateral attack . . . on constitutional grounds”
• asserting that “it is not the responsibility of a civil court to reweigh the factual evidence” utilized in court-martial determinations
• claiming that “the nexus between Mr. Watson’s claims here and his court-martial is the simple fact that the court-martial adjudicated, by guilty plea, an allegation of misconduct that also led to his involuntary [discharge]”
• court-martial proceeding reviewable only when there is such a deprivation of fundamental fairness as to impair due process
• court-martial proceeding reviewable when there is such a deprivation of fundamental fairness as to impair due process
• “Our own precedents hold that questions of fact resolved by military courts cannot be collaterally attacked.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).