C.F.R. » Title 32 » CHAPTER V—DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY › SUBCHAPTER A—AID OF CIVIL AUTHORITIES AND PUBLIC RELATIONS › PART 507—MANUFACTURE, SALE, WEAR, AND QUALITY CONTROL OF HERALDIC ITEMS › Subpart C—Heraldic Quality Control Program

32 C.F.R. § 507.12

General

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

The Heraldic Quality Control Program provides a method for ensuring that controlled heraldic items are manufactured by certified manufacturers in accordance with Government specifications. The design of metal insignia will be an exact duplicate of the design of the Government die or loaned hub from which the certified manufacturer's working die is extracted. The design of textile insignia will be embroidered in accordance with Government-furnished specification and cartoon.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 2010–2012 · leading case: United States v. Perelman, 695 F.3d 866 (9th Cir. 2011).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
United States v. Perelman, 695 F.3d 866 (9th Cir. 2011). “, 32 C.F.R. § 507.12 (a) (“The wearing of any decoration, service medal, badge, service ribbon, lapel button, or insignia prescribed or authorized by the Department of the Army and the Department of the Air Force by any person not properly authorized to wear such device .”
United States v. Perelman, 658 F.3d 1134 (9th Cir. 2011). “, 32 C.F.R. § 507.12 (a) (“The wearing of any decoration, service medal, badge, service ribbon, lapel button, or insignia prescribed or authorized by the Department of the Army and the Department of the Air Force by any person not properly authorized to wear such device .”
United States v. Perelman, 737 F. Supp. 2d 1221 (D. Nev. 2010). ““Possession and wearing” of service medals is addressed in 32 C.F.R. § 507.12 , which generally mirrors the language of § 704.”
United States v. David Perelman (9th Cir. 2012). “, 32 C.F.R. § 507.12 (a) (“The wearing of any decoration, service medal, badge, service rib- bon, lapel button, or insignia prescribed or authorized by the Department of the Army and the Department of the Air Force 2 Defendant also brings a facial vagueness challenge.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.