10 U.S.C. § 884

Art. 84. Breach of medical quarantine

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 10 CasesGoogle Scholar
Any person subject to this chapter—(1) who is ordered into medical quarantine by a person authorized to issue such order; and(2) who, with knowledge of the quarantine and the limits of the quarantine, goes beyond those limits before being released from the quarantine by proper authority;shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.(Added Pub. L. 114–328, div. E, title LX, § 5405, Dec. 23, 2016, 130 Stat. 2940.)Editorial NotesPrior Provisions

A prior section 884 was renumbered section 904b of this title.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date

Section effective on Jan. 1, 2019, as designated by the President, with implementing regulations and provisions relating to applicability to various situations, see section 5542 of Pub. L. 114–328 and Ex. Ord. No. 13825, set out as notes under section 801 of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 22 cases, 1975–2010 · leading case: United States v. Valadez, 5 M.J. 470 (1978).
United States v. Valadez, 5 M.J. 470 (1978). · cites it 2× “Accordingly, we relied on Article 84, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 884 , as an expression of public policy by Congress that enlistment contracts for military service by ineligible applicants, procured with knowledge of a government agent, were not in the public interest and void as…”
United States v. Torres, 7 M.J. 102 (1979). · cites it 2× “Simply because some other government agent who participated in the recruiting process was innocently deceived by such deliberate fraud in no way obviates its unlawfulness within the meaning of Article 84, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 884 . We believe that allegations of such misconduct by…”
United States v. Russo, 23 C.M.A. 511 (1975). “Article 84, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 884 .”
Willenbring v. Neurauter, 48 M.J. 152 (C.A.A.F. 1998). “Finally, when a person is charged with obtaining a discharge by fraud, a court-martial has jurisdiction over the offense of fraudulent separation in violation of Article 84, UCMJ, 10 USC § 884 ; if convicted of obtaining a fraudulent separation, the individual may be tried in a…”
United States v. Quintal, 10 M.J. 532 (1980). · cites it 3× “1 The appellant also presented evidence tending to show that his recruiter engaged in misconduct, possibly constituting a violation of Article 84, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 884 , 2 by inducing the *534 appellant to sign a document stating that the appellant had “successfully completed…”
United States v. Contreras, 69 M.J. 120 (C.A.A.F. 2010). · cites it 2× “2 Articles 84, 92, 110, and 115, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. §§ 884 , 892, 910, 915 (2006). Under Article 134, UCMJ, the following offenses would also not be considered purely military ones: disloyal statements, jumping from a vessel into the water, and straggling.”
United States v. Hampton, 7 M.J. 284 (1979). “See Article 84, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 884 ; para. 163, Manual, supra.”
United States v. Stone, 8 M.J. 140 (1979). “Except in cases involving jurisdictional questions, this Court has not had many opportunities to definitively rule or comment on the type of recruiter misconduct which technically violates Article 84, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 884 . United States v. Jenkins,…”
United States v. Robbins, 7 M.J. 618 (1978). · cites it 2× “Conceivably wanton and willful recruiter negligence, which does not amount to a violation of Article 84, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 884 , but results in the enlistment of an ineligible, will void an enlistment and preclude the Government from relying on a constructive enlistment.”
United States v. Harrison, 5 M.J. 476 (1978). “[ 10 U.S.C. § 884 ], during that process since appellant was not “known to him" to be ineligible for enlistment by reason of age.”
United States v. Ruggiero, 1 M.J. 1089 (1977). “84, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 884 , the resulting enlistment is void as contrary to public policy.”
Hodges v. Brown, 500 F. Supp. 25 (E.D. Pa. 1980). “Article 84, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C.A. § 884 (1956), Unlawful enlistment, appointment, or separation.”
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.