50 U.S.C. § 586 to 593
Repealed. Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, § 53, 70A Stat. 641
50 U.S.C. § 586 has no page of its own: the Office of the Law Revision Counsel prints it together with other sections as the single entry 50 U.S.C. § 586 to 593, shown below.
[repealed]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6
cases, 1953–1955 · leading case: United States v. Haimson, 5 C.M.A. 208 (1954).
United States v. Haimson, 5 C.M.A. 208 (1954). “Article 22(6), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 50 USC § 586 , withholds the power to convene a general court-martial from a commanding officer characterized by this status, in the following language: “When any such commanding officer is an accuser, the court shall be convened…”
United States v. Bunting, 4 C.M.A. 84 (1954). “In accordance with Article 22, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 50 USC § 586 , he was properly granted such authority by the Secretary of the Navy, almost a year before the convening of the court which tried the accused.”
United States v. Grow, 3 C.M.A. 77 (1953). “This proposal was rejected, and Article 22 of the Code, 50 USC § 586 , embodying the former military law on the subject as developed over a period of approximately one hun *82 dred years, was adopted.”
United States v. Marsh, 3 C.M.A. 48 (1953). “Article 22(b), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 50 USC § 586 , provides: “(b) When any such commanding officer is an accuser, the court shall be convened by a superior competent authority, and may in any case be convened by such authority when deemed desirable by him.”
United States v. Williams, 6 C.M.A. 243 (1955). “However, another approach — which the majority prefers to follow — has to do with the status of General Canham while his superior was absent from the command, and the question of whether at such times the former succeeded to the position of General Williams as convening…”
United States v. Hooper, 5 C.M.A. 391 (1955). “Authorities who may convene a general court-martial are designated in Article 22 (a), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 50 USC § 586 . The commander of an organization such as that of the Field Command is not included in the specific enumeration.”
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.