10 U.S.C. § 892
Art. 92. Failure to obey order or regulation
Historical and Revision Notes | ||
|---|---|---|
Revised section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
892 | 50:686. | May 5, 1950, ch. 169, § 1 (Art. 92), 64 Stat. 136. |
The word “order” is substituted for the word “same”.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2,033
cases (187 in the last 5 years), 1957–2026 · 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 aggravated sexual contact, forcible sodomy, assault consummated by a battery, and adultery, in violation of Articles 92, 120, 125, 128, and 134, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. §§ 892 , 920, 925, 928, and 934.”
United States v. New, 55 M.J. 95 (C.A.A.F. 2001). “Army uniform modified with United Nations (UN) accoutrements, in violation of Article 92(2), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 892 (2). Appellant’s sentence to a bad-conduct discharge was approved by the convening authority.”
United States v. Leblanc, 74 M.J. 650 (A.F.C.C.A. 2015). “Finding that the Air Force did so, we find it is bound by those requirements and cannot prosecute an individual under Article 92(1), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 892 (1) for violating a regulation that does not comply with those requirements.”
United States v. Chin, 75 M.J. 220 (C.A.A.F. 2016). “or regulation, seven specifica- tions of dereliction of duty for failing to store and protect classified information and unauthorized disclosure of that information, one specification of larceny of military property, and five specifications of unauthorized retention and failure…”
United States v. Barner, 56 M.J. 131 (C.A.A.F. 2001). “neral court-martial composed of officer and enlisted members convicted appellant, contrary to his pleas, of violating a lawful general regulation (seven specifications), assault consummated by a battery, adultery, indecent assault (four specifications), and obstruction of…”
Aguilar-Turcios v. Holder, 582 F.3d 1093 (9th Cir. 2009). “92, found at 10 U.S.C. § 892 . The "lawful general order" Aguilar violated in connection with his Article 92 conviction provides that government computers "shall be for official use and authorized purposes only" and that such "authorized purposes" may not include "uses involving…”
United States v. Oliver, 76 M.J. 271 (C.A.A.F. 2017). “A general court-martial composed of a military judge sitting alone convicted Appellant, pursuant to his pleas, of two specifications of violating a general regulation, one specification of dereliction of duty, and three specifications of adultery, in violation of Articles 92 and…”
United States v. Goodman, 70 M.J. 396 (C.A.A.F. 2011). “11-0389/AR 93, 107, and 134, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. §§ 892 , 893, 907, 934 (2006). Contrary to Appellant’s pleas, the military judge convicted him of wrongful sexual contact.”
United States v. Hornback, 73 M.J. 155 (C.A.A.F. 2014). “Posture of the Case Contrary to his pleas, Appellant was convicted by a panel of members sitting as a special court-martial of one specification each of using “spice,” signing a false official statement, and larceny of military property, in violation of Articles 92, 107, and…”
United States v. Jones, 69 M.J. 294 (C.A.A.F. 2011). “ilty by a military judge sitting as a general court-martial for violating a lawful general regulation on divers occasions by using government computer equipment and communication systems to view pornography, and for knowingly receiving child pornography that had been transported…”
United States v. Rapert, 75 M.J. 164 (C.A.A.F. 2016). “der Article 134, UCMJ, requires the Government to demonstrate four elements beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) That the accused communicated certain language expressing a present determination or intent to wrongfully injure the person, property, or reputation of another person,…”
Donald Vance v. Donald Rumsfeld, 701 F.3d 193 (7th Cir. 2012). “10 U.S.C. §892 . Abusive interrogation in Iraq and Afghanistan has led to courts-martial.”
— 10 U.S.C. § 892(3) — 1 case
United States v. Allen (A.F.C.C.A. 2020).
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.