Military Necessity

46 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Jaffee v. United States
  663 F.2d 1226· 3d Cir.· 1981-11-02 ·cited 51×
  The court held that the majority opinion irresponsibly affirms dismissal on grounds other than immunity, effectively wiping out causes of action for intentional torts and human rights violations.
• The Comm. FOR GI Rights v. Honorable Howard H. Callaway
  518 F.2d 466· D.C. Cir.· 1975-09-02 ·cited 51×
  The court held that warrantless drug inspections conducted without probable cause are reasonable under the Fourth Amendment in the military context, and that administrative sanctions imposed as part of a rehabilitation program do not violate due process without a prior hearing.
• Cortright v. Resor
  447 F.2d 245· 2d Cir.· 1971-08-20 ·cited 50×
  The court held that while courts must be scrupulous not to interfere with legitimate military matters, the exercise of First Amendment rights by service members is not exclusively an Army matter and may warrant judicial intervention.
• Hohri v. United States
  782 F.2d 227· D.C. Cir.· 1986-01-21 ·cited 48×
  The court held that it has appellate jurisdiction over the case and that the Tucker Act waives sovereign immunity for Takings Clause and contract claims, but not for other monetary claims.
• Rich v. Secretary OF THE Army
  735 F.2d 1220· 10th Cir.· 1984-06-01 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the Army followed its regulations in discharging the plaintiff for fraudulent enlistment by denying homosexuality, and that the discharge did not violate his constitutional rights.
• People OF THE State OF Cal. v. United States
  235 F.2d 647· 9th Cir.· 1956-03-30 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the trial court erred in its broad declarations and findings regarding water rights, particularly concerning the effect of federal sovereignty within an enclave and the acquisition of rights by prescription or use, necessitating a remand.
• Ben-Shalom v. Marsh
  881 F.2d 454· 7th Cir.· 1989-08-07 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the Army regulation barring reenlistment based on admitted homosexuality is constitutional, as it furthers substantial military interests and is not an impermissible infringement on First Amendment rights or equal protection.
• Hirabayashi v. United States
  828 F.2d 591· 9th Cir.· 1987-09-24 ·cited 26×
  The court held that both Hirabayashi's curfew and exclusion convictions should be vacated because the government suppressed evidence showing the orders were based on racial prejudice rather than military necessity, and this suppression likely affected the Supreme Court's original
• Carlson v. Schlesinger
  511 F.2d 1327· D.C. Cir.· 1975-04-25 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the arrests of servicemen for petitioning in a combat zone without prior approval were valid, and the commanders' denial of permission was reasonable, thus reversing the district court's judgment.
• Mendrano v. Smith
  797 F.2d 1538· 10th Cir.· 1986-07-31 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the Uniform Code of Military Justice's two-thirds voting rule for convictions in a six-member general court-martial does not violate the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause, as military necessity justifies different standards than civilian jury trials.
• Calmar S.S. Corp. v. Scott
  197 F.2d 795· 2d Cir.· 1952-05-12 ·cited 10×
  The policy ceased to cover the ship when its military requisition extended far beyond the original voyage, and the ship's military use barred claims under the Suits in Admiralty Act.
• Corwin v. Lehman
  724 F.2d 1577· Fed. Cir.· 1984-01-09 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the Secretary of the Navy's regulation establishing age-in-grade limits for Reserve officers was a reasonable exercise of statutory authority and did not violate the uniformity requirement of 10 U.S.C. § 280.
• Curry v. Secretary OF the Army
  595 F.2d 873· D.C. Cir.· 1979-03-14 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the provisions of the Uniform Code of Military Justice assigning multiple roles to the convening authority in court-martial proceedings are constitutionally permissible under the Fifth Amendment's due process clause.
• Hess v. Schlesinger
  486 F.2d 1311· D.C. Cir.· 1973-10-30 ·cited 8×
  The court held that summary judgment was inappropriate because a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding whether the Marine Corps' sixty-day dependent visit limitation furthers combat readiness.
• Ex parte Duncan. Kahanamoku v. Duncan. Ex parte White. Steer
  146 F.2d 576· 9th Cir.· 1944-11-01 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the proclamation of February 8, 1943, did not terminate the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, and changed conditions did not automatically restore the privilege, thus the trial court erred in ordering the release of appellees.
• Toyosaburo Korematsu v. United States
  140 F.2d 289· 9th Cir.· 1943-12-02 ·cited 8×
  The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the war power allows temporary infringement of individual liberties for national security.
• The Nat'l Bd. OF the Young Men's Christian Ass'ns v. The United States
  396 F.2d 467· Ct. Cl.· 1968-06-14 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the government's use of private buildings as a place of refuge and defense for troops, which led to enemy attack and destruction, constituted a compensable taking.
• Mitchell v. Swope
  224 F.2d 365· 9th Cir.· 1955-07-06 ·cited 6×
  The trial court properly denied the petition for a writ of habeas corpus because the contentions raised by the petitioner were without merit and the court-martial proceedings were valid.
• Hohri v. United States
  793 F.2d 304· D.C. Cir.· 1986-05-30 ·cited 4×
• Miller v. Rumsfeld
  647 F.2d 80· 9th Cir.· 1981-05-15 ·cited 4×
  The court should have reheard the case en banc to address the proper methodology for substantive due process analysis and the constitutional status of private consensual homosexual activity. The Beller panel misapplied substantive due process by adopting a standardless balancing
• DAY v. United States
  611 F.2d 1122· 5th Cir.· 1980-02-15 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a regulation deeming any occupied quarters adequate is an impermissible attempt to nullify the statute, but geographic distinctions in adequacy standards are permissible.
• Augenblick v. The United States
  509 F.2d 1157· Ct. Cl.· 1975-01-22 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the military courts had jurisdiction to try Commander Augenblick because his offense had a "service connection," despite it occurring off-base and in civilian clothes.
• Hohri v. The United States
  847 F.2d 779· Fed. Cir.· 1988-05-11 ·cited 2×
  Cases involving both the Little Tucker Act and Federal Tort Claims Act are appealable only to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
• Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. The United States
  453 F.2d 1380· Ct. Cl.· 1972-01-21 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the sinking of the ship was a non-compensable taking during military operations, not a taking for public use, and that any claim sounds in tort and is barred by limitations.
• Culver v. Secretary of the Air Force
  D.D.C.· 1977-01-10 ·cited 1×
  The court held that Air Force Regulation 35-15, prohibiting military personnel from participating in demonstrations in foreign countries, was not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad as applied to the appellant's conduct.
• Wickham v. Hall
  706 F.2d 713· 5th Cir.· 1983-06-10
  The court held that the Parole and Probation Commission may correct its own scoring errors on review, even if it results in a higher presumptive parole release date, provided the aggravation is factually supported and not already included in the offense definition.
• De Witt v. Wilcox
  161 F.2d 785· 9th Cir.· 1947-03-28
  The court held that General DeWitt's order to remove Wilcox from the Western Defense Command area was a valid exercise of war powers, implemented by Public Law No. 503, and not limited to misdemeanor prosecution.