U.S. Code » Title 10 » Subtitle Subtitle A— General Military Law › Part PART II— PERSONNEL › Chapter CHAPTER 53— MISCELLANEOUS RIGHTS AND BENEFITS

10 U.S.C. § 1044b

Military powers of attorney: requirement for recognition by States

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 10 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a)Instruments To Be Given Legal Effect Without Regard to State Law.—A military power of attorney—(1) is exempt from any requirement of form, substance, formality, or recording that is provided for powers of attorney under the laws of a State; and(2) shall be given the same legal effect as a power of attorney prepared and executed in accordance with the laws of the State concerned.(b)Military Power of Attorney.—For purposes of this section, a military power of attorney is any general or special power of attorney that is notarized in accordance with section 1044a of this title or other applicable State or Federal law.(c)Statement To Be Included.—(1) Under regulations prescribed by the Secretary concerned, each military power of attorney shall contain a statement that sets forth the provisions of subsection (a).(2) Paragraph (1) shall not be construed to make inapplicable the provisions of subsection (a) to a military power of attorney that does not include a statement described in that paragraph.(d)State Defined.—In this section, the term “State” includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and a possession of the United States.(Added Pub. L. 103–160, div. A, title V, § 574(a), Nov. 30, 1993, 107 Stat. 1674.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 2012–2015 · leading case: Bartholomew v. Blevins, 679 F.3d 497 (6th Cir. 2012).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Bartholomew v. Blevins, 679 F.3d 497 (6th Cir. 2012). · cites it 8× “§ 1983 , claiming that the county's rejection of the military power of attorney violated 10 U.S.C. § 1044b. That statute sets the minimal requirements for executing a military power of attorney and prohibits states from imposing additional requirements.”
Lennie W. Dingler v. Martha Patricia Ferguson, 193 So. 3d 644 (Miss. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “7 See 10 U.S.C. § 1044b (2012). 8 ¶ 41. The standard of review for admissibility of evidence is abuse of discretion.”
— 10 U.S.C. § 1044b(a) — 1 case
Bartholomew v. Blevins, 679 F.3d 497 (6th Cir. 2012). “§ 1983 , claiming that the county's rejection of the military power of attorney violated 10 U.S.C. § 1044b. That statute sets the minimal requirements for executing a military power of attorney and prohibits states from imposing additional requirements.”
— 10 U.S.C. § 1044b(b) — 1 case
Bartholomew v. Blevins, 679 F.3d 497 (6th Cir. 2012). “§ 1983 , claiming that the county's rejection of the military power of attorney violated 10 U.S.C. § 1044b. That statute sets the minimal requirements for executing a military power of attorney and prohibits states from imposing additional requirements.”
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.