Legal Opinion

United States v. Callahan

U.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Military Review

Decided February 14, 1980No. NCM 79 1631PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Per curiam

Appellant assigns as error the following: A PRETRIAL AGREEMENT DESIGNED TO ENFORCE A CIVIL LIABILITY OR OBLIGATION IS IN VIOLATION OF PARAGRAPH 126h, MANUAL FOR COURTS-MARTIAL, UNITED STATES, 1969 (REVISED EDITION) AND PUBLIC POLICY.

The disputed provision of the pretrial agreement, which appellant has asserted that he read and understood before he signed, was made part of the commonly called “null and void” terms and states, in pertinent part:

That it is expressly understood that the pretrial agreement will become null and void in the event:(5) or, I fail to make restitution to the victim in…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. United States v. CummingsUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1968
  2. United States v. ScolesUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1963
  3. United States v. TroglinUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1972
  4. United States v. ConwayUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1970

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. United States v. OlsonUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1987
  2. United States v. RascoeU.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Military Review · 1990
  3. United States v. ThomasNavy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals · 2004
  4. United States v. HenthornNavy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals · 2003
  5. United States v. CrossU.S. Army Court of Military Review · 1985

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API