Supreme Court· 6/12/1995

Ryder v. United States

Citations

515 U.S. 177
115 S. Ct. 2031
132 L. Ed. 2d 136
1995 U.S. LEXIS 4039

How courts have described this case

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

holding that petitioner “is entitled to a hearing before a properly appointed panel” of military court
holding that petitioner “is entitled to a hearing before a properly appointed panel” of military court
observing that the doctrine protects official actions “even though it is later discovered that the legality of that person’s appointment or election to office is deficient” (emphasis added)
explaining that, on final-judgment review, CAAF should vacate CCA decision if its judges were appointed in violation of Appointments Clause
explaining that, on final-judgment review, CAAF should vacate CCA decision if its judges were appointed in violation of Appointments Clause
holding an individual who makes a timely challenge to a judicial officer based on the Appointments Clause is entitled to a determination of the merits of his claim

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Rehnquist

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

183 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

21 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named Ryder v. United States

9 other CourtListener records share this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.