United States v. Oglivie

29 M.J. 1069 (1990)

From our private database of 46,000+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

United States v. Oglivie

United States Army Court of Military Review
29 M.J. 1069 (1990)

Play video

Facts

While stationed in Panama in 1986, Sergeant Oglivie (defendant) married his first wife, Amparo. When Oglivie was reassigned to Germany, and later to Oklahoma, Amparo remained in Panama, and Oglivie, who did not have Amparo’s address or telephone number, communicated with her only though a friend. In August 1988, Oglivie filed for divorce in Oklahoma and sent a copy of the divorce petition to his friend in Panama. Later that year, Amparo contacted Oglivie to inform him that she had filed for divorce in Panama. After this communication, Oglivie believed he was legally divorced. Reinforcing this belief was a communication from the Red Cross referring to Amparo as Oglivie’s ex-wife. Because a copy of a divorce decree, which Oglivie did not have, was required to modify basic allowance for quarters (BAQ) to a single person’s rate, Oglivie modified a copy of a friend’s divorce decree and submitted it to the finance office of the base where he was stationed. In December 1988, Oglivie married his second wife and requested that his BAQ be reinstated to the married person’s rate. Oglivie was charged under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. §§ 801–946, for, among other offenses: (1) making two false official statements to the finance office, (2) bigamy, and (3) altering a public record. Oglivie pled guilty to altering a public record but was also convicted, against his pleas, of bigamy and making the two false official statements. Oglivie appealed on the ground that his mistake as to his marital status was a defense to the charges.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Foreman, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 742,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 742,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,000 briefs, keyed to 986 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 742,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,000 briefs - keyed to 986 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership