Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

United States v. McNutt

Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces

Decided September 27, 2005No. 04-0295/ARPublished

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partCrawford, Judge

“[H]ard cases, it is said, make bad law.”1 This frequently quoted observation has served as a warning for over 300 years to judges on courts of law who would modify or reject a rule of law for the benefit of an individual cause, rather than reach a result they deem equitably unattractive. Despite this warning, the majority rejects decades of military practice and precedent to reach the result they deem equitable — a result that may seem fair but may also qualify as the outcome Lord Argyll warned against.

We profess to be a Nation that adheres to the rule of law. Because I believe that to be…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. United States v. DuBayUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1967
  2. United States v. GinnCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces · 1997
  3. United States v. LacyCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces · 1999
  4. United States v. BallardUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1985
  5. United States v. LewisUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1982

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API