Ryder v. 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 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).