United States v. DuBay
Open-knowledge reference entry
United States v. DuBay, 17 C.M.A. 147, 37 C.M.R 411 (C.M.A. 1967), was a United States case decided by the Court of Military Appeals that established procedure in courts-martial for holding hearings to determine issues raised collaterally which require findings of fact and conclusions of law. Such hearings are commonly referred to as "DuBay hearings", and the case is cited in the rules of the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces.
The case centered around the commander of Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, and his staff judge advocate. The two disagreed on the role of the president of the court-martial and the military judge. The litigation would grow to encompass over 100 cases. From 1966 to 1968, the DuBay cases were held. One of the cases, a court-martial of a Private DuBay would become the title case of the lawsuit.
Case
United States v. Phenix was the first of the DuBay cases to be filed, in August 1966.
The public source identifies “United States v. DuBay” as open-knowledge reference entry. This brief keeps that definition visible, then builds a research path around United, States and DuBay.
Why this record matters
A short description can identify a subject without explaining its stakes. For “United States v. DuBay”, the useful work is to connect “open-knowledge reference entry” to the records capable of establishing context and consequence.
Named sources, stable identifiers and responsible institutions provide the strongest route from overview to verifiable evidence. The source revision retrieved here is dated Aug 28, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q7893273. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1967, 1966 and 1968.
A concise general-reference account can conceal disagreements about scope, terminology or the weight assigned to individual sources. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “United States v. DuBay”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow United States v. DuBay primary sources, United States v. DuBay archive and United research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “United States v. DuBay”?
- Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
- What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “United States v. DuBay” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.