10 U.S.C. § 1001
Reference to chapter 1219
Provisions of law relating to standards and procedures for retention and promotion of members of reserve components are set forth in chapter 1219 of this title (beginning with section 12641).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5
cases, 1961–2013 · leading case: United States v. New, 55 M.J. 95 (C.A.A.F. 2001).
United States v. New, 55 M.J. 95 (C.A.A.F. 2001). “The Supreme Court in Gaudin addressed a similar question where a federal district court judge refused to submit to the jury the question of the materiality of a fact contained in a false statement allegedly made in violation of 10 USC § 1001 .”
Haynes v. Haynes, 303 S.E.2d 429 (S.C. 1983). “Thereafter, the *164 Congress of the United States enacted the Uniform Services Former Spouses Protection Act, 10 U.S.C.A. § 1001 et seq., which, in effect, invalidated McCarty and permitted, but did not require, states to divide military retirement pay treating it as property…”
United States v. Passut, 72 M.J. 597 (A.F.C.C.A. 2013). “Under some circumstances, military members who make false statements to civilian officials who are not performing a military function can be prosecuted under Article 134, UCMJ, for a violation of 10 U.S.C. § 1001 or a state law equivalent.”
Albert F. Maurer Co. v. United States, 47 Cust. Ct. 560 (Cust. Ct. 1961). “[ 10 U.S.C. § 1001 ], [Emphasis added.] The court is cited to no language providing “otherwise” in respect of the flexible tariff authority, save only section 336 itself.”
Jones v. Hoffman, 419 F. Supp. 79 (M.D. Ala. 1976). “10 U.S.C. § 1001 provides that: “The Secretary * * * shall, by regulation, prescribe * * * standards and qualifications for the retention and promotion of members of the reserve components under his jurisdiction * * *.”
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.