10 U.S.C. § 817
Art. 17. Jurisdiction of courts-martial in general
Historical and Revision Notes | ||
|---|---|---|
Revised section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
817(a) 817(b) | 50:577(a). 50:577(b). | May 5, 1950, ch. 169, § 1 (Art. 17), 64 Stat. 114. |
In subsection (a), the word “has” is substituted for the words “shall have”.
In subsection (b), the word “after” is substituted for the words “subsequent to”. The words “the provisions of” are omitted as surplusage. The words “department that includes the” are inserted before the words “armed force”, since the review is carried out by the department and not by the armed force.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17
cases, 1967–2011 · leading case: Rushing, Brandon Gene, 353 S.W.3d 863 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011).
Rushing, Brandon Gene, 353 S.W.3d 863 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011). “10 U.S.C.A. § 817 (a) (West 2010). 20 . Tex.”
United States v. Benton, 7 M.J. 606 (1979). “When one makes a statement that reasonably may be construed as a serious request or advice to commit an offense, he has committed at least a simple disorder punishable under Article 134, UCMJ.”
United States v. Houston, 17 C.M.A. 280 (1967). “Acknowledging that reciprocal jurisdiction “shall be in accordance with regulations prescribed by the President” (Article 17(a), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 817 ), the board of review, nevertheless, considered paragraph 4g(3) an expression of that which is…”
James Roy Gosa v. J. A. Mayden, Warden, Fed. Corr. Inst., Tallahassee, Florida, 450 F.2d 753 (5th Cir. 1971). “( 10 U.S.C.A. §§ 817 & 818). . Not only did Gosa’s alleged crime occur prior to O’Callahan , his conviction and sentence became final to the date of that decision; thus, there is no occasion for us to take any position on the issue of partial retroactivity accorded to the…”
Brown v. United States, 365 F. Supp. 328 (E.D. Pa. 1973). “Morgan of Harvard, drafter of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, to the Senate Armed Services Subcommittee is helpful in elucidating the reasons for and uses of unification provisions, even though it relates to 10 U.S.C. § 817 , not § 823: “Most of the articles consist of a…”
United States v. Morgan, 47 M.J. 27 (C.A.A.F. 1997). “To begin to analyze that question, compare Article 17(b), UCMJ, 10 USC § 817 (b) ("In all cases, departmental review .”
United States v. Talty, 17 M.J. 1127 (1984). “See Article 17(a), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 817 (a). It is true that the Manual for Courts-Martial, 1969 (Rev.”
Bismullah Ex Rel. Bismullah v. Gates, 551 F.3d 1068 (D.C. Cir. 2008). “§ 802 (specifying persons subject to court martial); 10 U.S.C. § 817 (defining jurisdiction of court martial); 10 U.”
United States v. Oliver, 55 M.J. 763 (N.M.C.C.A. 2001). “We view the appellant’s initial reference to subject matter jurisdiction as a confused allusion to the actual issue of personal jurisdiction that he ultimately addresses.”
United States v. Oliver, 56 M.J. 695 (N.M.C.C.A. 2001). “We view the appellant’s initial reference to subject matter jurisdiction as an allusion to the actual issue of personal jurisdiction that he ultimately addresses.”
Brown v. McNamara, 387 F.2d 150 (3d Cir. 1967). “10 U.S.C. §§ 817 , 859-876. This includes resort to a board of review ( 10 U.”
Ralph L. Bell v. John J. Clark, Warden, Fed. Reformatory, Petersburg, Virginia, 437 F.2d 200 (4th Cir. 1971). “ject to any treaty or agreement to which the United States is or may be a party or to any accepted rule of international law, persons serving with, employed by, or accompanying the armed forces outside the United States and outside the following: that part of Alaska east of…”
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.