Stuart Sargisson 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 a claim founded on an alleged statutory violation was justiciable
• explaining that “[a] court lacks the special expertise needed to review reserve officers’ records and rank them on the basis of relative merit”
• stating that military is not required to place procedural or substantive limitations on Secretary’s decisions; however, once Secretary promulgates instructions, actions contrary to such instructions are subject to judicial review
• finding harmless error where there was no risk of prejudice to the serviceman due to the violation
• \Section 266(a) was enacted because 'Congress was concerned that the military establishments (with their significant sector of Regular officers) not discriminate against Reserves'\
• unlawful discharge petitions based on the “fair and equitable” standards of former 10 U.S.C. § 3442(c) and 10 U.S.C. § 8442(c) are reviewable, and thus justiciable, in the Claims Court

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).