Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Law
Feres Lives: How The Military Medical Malpractice Administrative Claims Process Denies Servicemembers Adequate Compensation, Robert A. Diehl
Feres Lives: How The Military Medical Malpractice Administrative Claims Process Denies Servicemembers Adequate Compensation, Robert A. Diehl
Duquesne Law Review
For more than seventy years, active-duty members of the United States armed forces injured by the negligence of military medical practitioners have been denied redress in the federal courts for their injuries. Surviving spouses, children, and probate estates have been turned away from the courthouse. The United States Supreme Court has justified this practice in a series of cases interpreting the Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA"),1 a partial waiver of the federal government's sovereign immunity to suits sounding in law. These precedents-collectively called the Feres doctrine-are a judicial invention constructed from a complex and opaque series of arguments about …
Armed Services - Conscientious Objectors - Belief In Orthodox Concept Of God Not Required For Exemption, William C. Bartley
Armed Services - Conscientious Objectors - Belief In Orthodox Concept Of God Not Required For Exemption, William C. Bartley
Duquesne Law Review
No abstract provided.
Constitutional Law - Courts-Martial - Right To Counsel, Richard S. Dorfzaun
Constitutional Law - Courts-Martial - Right To Counsel, Richard S. Dorfzaun
Duquesne Law Review
An accused before a military court is not entitled under the sixth amendment to be represented by legally trained counsel.
Kennedy v. Commandant, 258 F. Supp. 967 (D. Kan. 1966).
The Lawfulness Of United States Assistance To The Republic Of Viet Nam, John Norton Moore, James L. Underwood
The Lawfulness Of United States Assistance To The Republic Of Viet Nam, John Norton Moore, James L. Underwood
Duquesne Law Review
In recent months, critics of United States assistance to the Republic of Viet Nam have increasingly used legal arguments in their attacks on that assistance. They have asserted that the United States presence and activities in Viet Nam violate general principles of international law and the United Nations Charter. In support of these assertions, they argue that the Republic of Viet Nam is not a state, that the United States is merely intervening in a civil war, and that this intervention neither qualifies as self-defense under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter nor is otherwise legally justified. Although there …