10 U.S.C. § 813
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 308
cases (28 in the last 5 years), 1941–2026 · leading case: United States v. Howell, 75 M.J. 386 (C.A.A.F. 2016).
United States v. Howell, 75 M.J. 386 (C.A.A.F. 2016). “16-0289 & 16-0367/MC Opinion of the Court 13, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 813 (2012). The lower court granted the Government’s writ petition in part and denied in part.”
United States v. Inong, 58 M.J. 460 (C.A.A.F. 2003). “WHETHER APPELLANT WAS SUBJECTED TO ILLEGAL PRETRIAL PUNISHMENT BY BEING CONFINED IN MAXIMUM CUSTODY FOR 37 DAYS IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 13, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 813 (2000). II. WHETHER THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT APPELLANT AFFIRMATIVELY WAIVED THE ISSUE OF ILLEGAL…”
United States v. Palmiter, 20 M.J. 90 (1985). “Throughout these proceedings appellant has contended that he was subjected to punishment prior to trial, in violation of Article 13, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 813 , because he was placed in the general population of the confinement facility with sentenced prisoners.”
United States v. Zarbatany, 70 M.J. 169 (C.A.A.F. 2011). “However, Article 13, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 813 (2006), does not preclude forms of relief other than confinement credit.”
United States v. King, 58 M.J. 110 (C.A.A.F. 2003). “Future Cases The Court of Criminal Appeals felt compelled by our precedent to consider Appellant’s request for Mason credit, 3 An accused is entitled to additional sentence credit for violations of Article 13, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 813 (2002). See R.C.M. 305(k); United States v.”
Combs v. United States, 50 Fed. Cl. 592 (Fed. Cl. 2001). “Additionally, in the same opinion the court addressed plaintiffs allegations that he was subjected to unlawful pre-trial punishment, pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 813 , 7 during the period between the time his first conviction was overturned (October 8,1992) and his second conviction…”
United States v. Adcock, 65 M.J. 18 (C.A.A.F. 2007). “wear special uniforms prescribed only for post-trial prisoners,” and that “[p]risoners shall be 2 United States v.”
United States v. Spaustat, 57 M.J. 256 (C.A.A.F. 2002). “Rock, 52 MJ at 157 (Article 13, UCMJ, 10 USC § 813 , violations unrelated to pretrial punishment); see also United States v.”
United States v. Pierce, 27 M.J. 367 (1989). “We granted review of the following issue: WHETHER REFERRAL TO A COURT-MARTIAL OF AN OFFENSE FOR WHICH APPELLANT HAD BEEN PREVIOUSLY PUNISHED CONSTITUTED A DENIAL OF MILITARY DUE PROCESS AND A VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 13, UCMJ [ 10 U.S.C. § 813 ]. On or about July 5, 1986, appellant…”
United States v. Barnett, 71 M.J. 248 (C.A.A.F. 2012). “Barnett, No. ACM 37578, slip op. at 8 (A.F. Ct. Crim.”
United States v. White, 54 M.J. 469 (C.A.A.F. 2001). “Nevertheless, he did not assert an Article 13, UCMJ, 10 USC § 813 , violation at trial. Appellant also avers that a field-grade chaplain witnessed some of the abuses and “called the guards on it.”
United States v. Wise, 64 M.J. 468 (C.A.A.F. 2007). “” Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate 6 This Court recognizes that the term “immediate association” has been used in cases referring to Article 13, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 813 (2000), and in particular when analyzing whether pretrial inmates were inappropriately held with convicted…”
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.