10 U.S.C. § 1567
Duration of military protective orders
A military protective order issued by a military commander shall remain in effect until such time as the military commander terminates the order or issues a replacement order.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1945–2024 · leading case: United States v. Bayer, 331 U.S. 532 (1947).
United States v. Bayer, 331 U.S. 532 (1947). “Radovich was tried and on June 29, 1945, convicted by court-martial of violating the 95th and 96th Articles of War, 10 U.S.C. §§ 1567 , 1568, 41 Stat. 806 -807.”
United States v. Downard, 6 C.M.A. 538 (1955). “The first appearance of worthless check offenses is to be found under the proscription of Article 95 of the Articles of War, 10 USC § 1567 , which denounced “conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman.”
United States v. Welch, 1 C.M.A. 402 (1952). “Quinn, Chief Judge: Petitioner was convicted by general court-martial of conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman in violation of Article of War 95, 10 U.S.C. § 1567 . He was found guilty on June 6, 1951, and was sentenced to be dismissed from the service.”
United States v. Sippel, 4 C.M.A. 50 (1954). “, and was found guilty of offenses proscribed by Articles of War 95 and 96, 10 USC §§ 1567 , 1568, and Article 107, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 50 USC § 701 .”
United States v. Stene, 7 C.M.A. 277 (1956). “Article of War 95, 10 USC § 1567 . See United States v Downard, 1 USCMA 346 , 3 CMR 80 .”
United States v. Hutchins, 5 C.M.A. 422 (1955). “” It is contended that by this enlargement Congress gave legislative recognition to service cases holding a false official statement, of a kind not otherwise specified, to be a violation of the general articles, that is, Articles of War 95 and 96, 10 USC §§ 1567 and 1568, and…”
United States v. Fleming, 7 C.M.A. 543 (1957). “Opinion of the Court Homer FERGUSON, Judge: The accused Army officer was tried by general court-martial for three specifications alleging violations of Article of War 95, 10 USC § 1567 (1946 ed) (Charge I), two specifications — reciting similar acts — allegedly violative of…”
Richardson v. Zuppann, 81 F. Supp. 809 (M.D. Penn. 1949). “Richardson, a military prisoner at United States Disciplinary Barracks, New Cumberland, Pennsylvania, who was convicted by a General CourtMiartial on two charges involving violations of the 95th and 96th Articles of War, 10 U.S.C.A. §§ 1567 and 1568. The first charge involves an…”
United States v. Stewart, 1 C.M.A. 648 (1952). “Appellant has been found guilty under one specification alleging conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman, in violation of Article of War 95, 10 USC § 1567 ; and one specification alleging conduct prejudicial to good order and military discipline, in violation of Article of…”
United States v. Canella, 63 F. Supp. 377 (S.D. Cal. 1945). “However, for the purpose of the argument I assume that either of these Articles or some of the general punitive articles — such as the ones which punish conduct unbecoming an officer and gentleman, Article 95, 10 U.S.C.A. § 1567 , or conduct prejudicial to the service, Article…”
United States v. Downard, 1 C.M.A. 346 (1952). “Quinn, Chief Judge: Petitioner was convicted by general court-martial of two specifications alleging conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman in violation of Article of War 95, 10 USC § 1567 , and was sentenced to be dismissed from the service.”
United States v. Rhodes, 3 C.M.A. 73 (1953). “BROSMan, Judge: A general court-martial convened at Pusan, Korea, convicted the accused, an Army lieutenant, of “black market” activities contrary to the provisions Of certain standing orders, and additionally of conspiracy to violate the same orders, the former offense…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.