Legal Opinion · Dissent

United States v. Ford

U S Air Force Court of Military Review

Decided April 13, 1990No. ACM 27930Published

1Dissent

Senior Judge BLOMMERS

(dissenting):

I find no reason under the law to take as restrictive a view of the term “military property” as my brothers do in this case. I therefore dissent. In my judgment, the better approach would be to resolve a question as to the property’s status, military or nonmilitary, on a case-by-case basis, rather than carve out an entire class of property and define it as “nonmilitary” just because such property does not derive its existence from “funds appropriated by Congress” and is being held by a Nonappropriated Fund Instrumentality (NAFI) for its exclusive use. That is…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. United States v. SchelinUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1983
  2. United States v. SimondsUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1985
  3. United States v. SchelinU S Air Force Court of Military Review · 1981

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

Powered by the Exa API