10 U.S.C. § 1002

UNIFORM STANDARDS FOR THE INTERROGATION OF PERSONS UNDER THE DETENTION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 10 CasesGoogle Scholar

“(a)In General.—No person in the custody or under the effective control of the Department of Defense or under detention in a Department of Defense facility shall be subject to any treatment or technique of interrogation not authorized by and listed in the United States Army Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogation.“(b)Applicability.—Subsection (a) shall not apply with respect to any person in the custody or under the effective control of the Department of Defense pursuant to a criminal law or immigration law of the United States.“(c)Construction.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect the rights under the United States Constitution of any person in the custody or under the physical jurisdiction of the United States.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases, 1956–2019 · leading case: Gordon v. United States, 140 F. Supp. 263 (Ct. Cl. 1956).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Gordon v. United States, 140 F. Supp. 263 (Ct. Cl. 1956). · cites it 2× “1081 , 1085, 10 U.S.C.A. § 1002 ; and (3) that Congress did not intend to "pyramid the retirement pay benefits" of the Pay Readjustment Act of 1942, supra, onto the benefits granted in sections 12(k) and 15(b) of the Act of June 23, 1938, 52 Stat.”

Randolph v. United States, 179 Ct. Cl. 425 (Ct. Cl. 1967). “1085 ; 10 U.S.C. §1002 (1952)) provided: * * * [E]ach commissioned officer of the Regular Air Force [or Army] or of any reserve component of the Air Force [or Army] of the United States, heretofore or hereafter retired or granted retirement pay under any provision of law shall…”

Daniel Draney v. Westco Chemicals, Inc. (C.D. Cal. 2019). “) Westco also possesses or exercises certain types of authority, 9 responsibility, or control over the Plans and thus is a functional fiduciary under 29 10 U.S.C. §1002 (21)(A). (FAC ¶ 16.) Defendant Alan is the current (or former) President 11 of Westco.”

Jones v. Hoffman, 419 F. Supp. 79 (M.D. Ala. 1976). “10 U.S.C. § 1002 (c) exempts adjutants general and assistant adjutants general from the requirements of subsection (a) of said section, a requirement of promotional points.”

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.