- the generous protections afforded by United States v. Grostefon, 12 MJ 431 (CMA 1982), do not obviate normal rules of appellate practice
- under United States v. Grostefon, 12 MJ 431 (CMA 1982), the burden is on appellant to file pleadings that articulate specific issues or to otherwise articulate a colorable claim that his rights under Grostefon are not being protected
CAAF Opinion Digest · IV.G.8 · Appeals
Grostefon
2 digested opinions, 1999–2002 Terms
2002
1999
- United States v. Grostefon, 12 MJ 431 (CMA 1982), does not permit an appellant to raise issues in an untimely manner without good cause, and such issues should be raised in accordance with Rule 21(b)(4), United States Court of Military Appeals (now United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces) Rules of Practice and procedure which require “direct and concise argument showing why there is good cause to grant the petition, demonstrating with particularity why the errors assigned are materially prejudicial to the substantial rights of the appellant . . . ."
Source and status
This is a verbatim mirror of the Opinion Digest and opinions tables published by the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. The headnotes are the court staff’s summaries of the opinions, reproduced as published; they are not the opinions themselves and not this site’s commentary. Nothing here is edited on this site.
Last updated by the court: Oct 13, 2026 · mirrored Oct 29, 2026 · digest page IVG8 · Always confirm a holding against the opinion itself (linked from each case name).