10 U.S.C. § 811
CONSISTENCY WITH UNITED STATES OBLIGATIONS UNDER INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS.
“No provision of this subtitle [subtitle B (§§ 811–828) of title VIII of div. A of Pub. L. 108–136, see Tables for classification] or any amendment made by this subtitle shall apply to the extent the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of Commerce, the United States Trade Representative, and the Secretary of State, determines that it is inconsistent with United States obligations under an international agreement.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4
cases, 1966–2014 · leading case: Courtney v. Williams, 1 M.J. 267 (1976).
Courtney v. Williams, 1 M.J. 267 (1976). “Article 11(b), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 811 (b). . DOD Dir. 1325.4, para.”
United States v. Ellsey, 16 C.M.A. 455 (1966). “Code, supra, Article 11, 10 USC § 811 . On the other hand, custody is defined only inferentially by the Code, which declares “Apprehension is the taking of a person into custody.”
United States v. Holloway, 36 M.J. 1078 (1993). “Article 11, 10 U.S.C. § 811 continued previous provisions requiring that within 24 hours of the imposition of pretrial confinement the commanding officer shall be notified of the name of the prisoner, the offense, and the person ordering confinement.”
United States v. Freeman III (N.M.C.C.A. 2014). “08, reckless operation of a vehicle, and two specifications of negligent homicide, in violation of Articles 111 and 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 811 and 934. 1 The members sentenced the appellant to six years’ confinement, reduction to pay grade E-1, and a…”
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.