Legal Opinion · Concurrence

United States v. Hudson

United States Court of Military Appeals

Decided October 10, 1978No. 33,855; CM 434373Published

1ConcurrenceFletcher, Chief Judge

I concur in the result. My reading of the appellant’s orders and service regulations applicable to this National Guardsman differs from that expressed in the lead opinion. Nonetheless, I also vote to affirm the decision of the United States Army Court of Military Review.

Pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 672(d), as implemented by Army and National Guard Regulations, with his own consent and that of the Governor of California, the appellant was ordered to active duty under the terms of his orders, for a period of “21 weeks or upon completion of MOS [Military Occupational Specialty] training but not less…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Carter v. McClaughrySupreme Court of the United States · 1902
  2. William L. Calley, Jr., Cross-Appellant v. Howard H. Callaway, Etc., Etc., Cross-AppelleesCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1975
  3. Piper v. Chris-Craft Industries, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1976
  4. Lee v. MadiganSupreme Court of the United States · 1959
  5. United States v. SmithUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1978

7 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