Hughes, Hyllested & Co. v. Klingender Bros.

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that a con vening authority who is an accuser in a court-martial arguably cannot be neutral enough to convene that court-martial
• finding that a convening authority did not become an accuser de- spite having given the order the accused was alleged to have disobeyed because there was no evidence the convening authority became personally involved
• agreeing with the lower court that “[i]n light of the serious nature of the charges facing the appellant” it was “unlikely that any competent authority would not have referred this case to a special court-martial” (citation omitted) (internal quota- tion marks omitted)
• agreeing with the lower court that “[i]n light of the serious nature of the charges facing the appellant” it was “unlikely that any competent authority would not have referred this case to a special court-martial” (citation omitted) (internal quota- tion marks omitted)
• agreeing with the lower court that “[i]n light of the serious nature of the charges facing the appellant” it was “unlikely that any competent authority would not have referred this case to a special court-martial” (citation omitted) (internal quota- tion marks omitted)
• agreeing with the lower court that “[i]n light of the serious nature of the charges facing the appellant” it was “unlikely that any competent authority would not have referred this case to a special court-martial” (citation omitted) (internal quota- tion marks omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).