FEDERAL · 10 U.S.C. · Chapter SUBCHAPTER IX—POST-TRIAL PROCEDURE AND REVIEW OF COURTS-MARTIAL
Art. 76. Finality of proceedings, findings, and sentences
10 U.S.C. § 876
Title10 — Armed Forces
ChapterSUBCHAPTER IX—POST-TRIAL PROCEDURE AND REVIEW OF COURTS-MARTIAL
This text of 10 U.S.C. § 876 (Art. 76. Finality of proceedings, findings, and sentences) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Bluebook
10 U.S.C. § 876.
Text
The appellate review of records of trial provided by this chapter, the proceedings, findings, and sentences of courts-martial as approved, reviewed, or affirmed as required by this chapter, and all dismissals and discharges carried into execution under sentences by courts-martial following approval, review, or affirmation as required by this chapter, are final and conclusive. Orders publishing the proceedings of courts-martial and all action taken pursuant to those proceedings are binding upon all departments, courts, agencies, and officers of the United States, subject only to action upon a petition for a new trial as provided in section 873 of this title (article 73) and to action by the Secretary concerned as provided in section 874 of this title (article 74) and the authority of the Pr
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Schlesinger v. Councilman
420 U.S. 738 (Supreme Court, 1975)
United States v. Augenblick
393 U.S. 348 (Supreme Court, 1969)
Middendorf v. Henry
425 U.S. 25 (Supreme Court, 1976)
United States v. Tempia
16 C.M.A. 629 (United States Court of Military Appeals, 1967)
Gosa v. Mayden
413 U.S. 665 (Supreme Court, 1973)
Loving v. United States
62 M.J. 235 (Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, 2005)
Hubert Ashe v. Robert S. McNamara Secretary of Defense
355 F.2d 277 (First Circuit, 1965)
Cross-Sound Ferry Services, Inc. v. Interstate Commerce Commission and United States of America, and Viking Starship, Inc., Intervenor
934 F.2d 327 (D.C. Circuit, 1991)
Richard G. Augenblick v. The United States
377 F.2d 586 (Court of Claims, 1967)
United States v. Culp
14 C.M.A. 199 (United States Court of Military Appeals, 1963)
United States v. Snyder
18 C.M.A. 480 (United States Court of Military Appeals, 1969)
Royal Barry Shaw v. The United States
357 F.2d 949 (Court of Claims, 1966)
Selden G. Hooper v. The United States
326 F.2d 982 (Court of Claims, 1964)
James Wm. Smith v. Robert S. McNamara U. S. Secretary of Defense, Gilbert Esco Angle v. Robert S. McNamara U. S. Secretary of Defense
395 F.2d 896 (Tenth Circuit, 1968)
Chambers v. United States
451 F.2d 1045 (Court of Claims, 1971)
Wayne Lindahl v. Office of Personnel Management
718 F.2d 391 (Federal Circuit, 1983)
Dumas v. United States
620 F.2d 247 (Court of Claims, 1980)
Jaroslav Sedivy v. Elliot L. Richardson, Secretary of Defense of the United States of America
485 F.2d 1115 (Third Circuit, 1973)
United States v. Kirsch
15 C.M.A. 84 (United States Court of Military Appeals, 1964)
United States v. Cleckley
8 C.M.A. 83 (United States Court of Military Appeals, 1957)
Source Credit
History
(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 64.)
Editorial Notes
The word "under" is substituted for the words "pursuant to". The word "are" is substituted for the words "shall be". The words "Secretary concerned" are substituted for the words "Secretary of a Department".
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
10 U.S.C. § 876, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/usc/10/876.