Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

United States v. Allen

United States Court of Military Appeals

Decided October 25, 1988No. 58,810; ACM 25817Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partCox, Judge

I agree with my Brothers that appellant was not guilty of signing false official statements and larceny. Instead, the court-martial should have given full faith and credit to the North Carolina decree. “It is a well-established rule that a state has the power to determine how its residents enter into a marital relationship.” *240United States v. Seay, 718 F.2d 1279, 1285 (4th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1226, 104 S.Ct. 2677, 81 L.Ed.2d 873 (1984), citing Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 205, 8 S.Ct. 723, 726, 31 L.Ed. 654 (1887). “Variations in state law concerning the prerequisites to a…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Maynard v. HillSupreme Court of the United States · 1888
  2. United States v. ThomasUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1962
  3. United States v. LaFontantUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1983
  4. United States v. Mary Louise Seay, A/K/A Mary Louise DerringerCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1983
  5. United States v. HendersonUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1985

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

Powered by the Exa API