Marcus A. Arnheiter v. John H. Chafee, U.S. Secretary of the Navy, Does One Through Ten, Inclusive
Cases that cite this one
32 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Marcus Covington, Jr. v. Donald Anderson, Adjutant General of the Military Department of the State of Oregon (9th Cir. 1973)
- Herbert Phillip Schlanger v. United States of America (9th Cir. 1978)
- Mangino v. Department of the Army (District Court, D. Kansas 1993)
- Helton v. United States (United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia 1982)
- Wallace v. Chappell (9th Cir. 1981)
- Wallace v. Chappell (9th Cir. 1981)
- Cortright v. Resor (District Court, E.D. New York 1971)
- Briggs v. Dalton (United States District Court for the District of Hawaii 1996)
- Khalsa v. Weinberger (9th Cir. 1986)
- Sebra v. Neville (9th Cir. 1986)
- Sebra v. Neville (9th Cir. 1986)
- Pamela Lea Maier v. Verne Orr, Secretary of the Air Force (Fed. Cir. 1985)
- Khalsa v. Weinberger (9th Cir. 1985)
- Khalsa v. Weinberger (9th Cir. 1985)
- Khalsa v. Weinberger (9th Cir. 1985)
- Shaw v. Gwatney (United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas 1984)
- Moreno v. Commander, McChord Air Force Base (United States District Court for the District of Arizona 1983)
- Lane v. Secretary of Army (District Court, D. Maryland 1980)
- Rawlins v. United States (Court of Claims 1980)
- Staff Sergeant Agustin Correa v. Honorable William Graham Clayton, Jr., Secretary of the Navy (9th Cir. 1977)
- Johnson v. Hoffman (District Court, E.D. Missouri 1977)
- Grant A. Schulke, Master Sergeant Ret., and Regina H. Schulke v. United States of America (10th Cir. 1976)
- Suro v. Padilla (District Court, D. Puerto Rico 1976)
- Carlin (Court of Claims 1976)
- Dowler v. Schlesinger (District Court, D. Maryland 1974)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
Appellant, a lieutenant commander of the United States Navy, brought action against the Secretary of the Navy for a declaratory judgment and for relief in the nature of mandamus.
Three months after being given command of a destroyer escort ship, assigned to duty in waters off Vietnam, appellant was relieved of command on March 31, 1966. A hearing was held, with appellant present and represented by counsel. The record was forwarded to the Chief of Naval Personnel who sustained the action, as did the Secretary of the Navy. This action was brought in December 1967, seeking to have the district court direct the Secretary of the Navy to convene a court of inquiry “or other appropriate hearing pursuant to U. S. Naval Regulations” to investigate the circumstances surrounding his relief from command. Appellant remains in active Navy service.
After reviewing the voluminous record, the district court concluded that the Navy’s actions were internal, administrative matters involving the judgment of Naval Command concerning duty assignment and promotion under Vietnam War conditions, that the Navy acted in substantial conformance with regulations and well within the bounds of fundamental due process, and granted a motion for summary judgment of dismissal. Arnheiter v. Ignatius, 292 F.Supp. 911 (N.D.Cal. 1968).
We affirm so much of the district court’s opinion as holds that the federal courts have no jurisdiction.
“(J)udges are not given the task of running the Army. * * * The military constitutes a specialized community governed by a separate discipline from that of the civilian. Orderly government requires that the judiciary be as scrupulous not to interfere with legitimate Army matters as the Army must be scrupulous not to intervene in judicial matters.” Orloff v. Willoughby, 345 U.S. 83, 93, 73 S.Ct. 534, 540, 97 L.Ed. 842.
See also E. Sherman, Judicial Review of Military Determinations, 48 Military L.Rev. 91 (1970).
Affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.