10 U.S.C. § 277
Reimbursement
A prior section 277, act Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 14, prohibited discrimination in administering laws applicable to both Regulars and Reserves, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 103–337, div. A, title XVI, §§ 1661(a)(2)(A), 1691,
2016—Pub. L. 114–328 renumbered section 377 of this title as this section.
2008—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 110–181, § 1061(1), substituted “Subject to subsection (c), to the extent” for “To the extent”.
Subsecs. (b), (c). Pub. L. 110–181, § 1061(2), added subsecs. (b) and (c) and struck out former subsec. (b) which read as follows: “An agency to which support is provided under this chapter is not required to reimburse the Department of Defense for such support if such support—
“(1) is provided in the normal course of military training or operations; or
“(2) results in a benefit to the element of the Department of Defense providing the support that is substantially equivalent to that which would otherwise be obtained from military operations or training.”
1988—Pub. L. 100–456 amended section generally. Prior to amendment, section read as follows: “The Secretary of Defense shall issue regulations providing that reimbursement may be a condition of assistance to a civilian law enforcement official under this chapter.”
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 25
cases, 1969–1997 · leading case: Laningham v. United States, 30 Fed. Cl. 296 (Fed. Cl. 1994).
Laningham v. United States, 30 Fed. Cl. 296 (Fed. Cl. 1994). “Thus, plaintiff alleges that *303 the Navy has discriminated among and between reservists and regulars in violation of 10 U.S.C. § 277 . Next, plaintiff alleges that defendant has denied him the pay and allowances due him at the grade of Captain.”
James M. MacFarlane v. Ella T. Grasso, 696 F.2d 217 (2d Cir. 1982). “We are not convinced by his *223 argument that a policy of internal promotion is invalid because it may conflict with the Total Force program’s goal of enhanced readiness.”
Stuart Sargisson v. The United States, 913 F.2d 918 (Fed. Cir. 1990). “2d at 994 ; see 10 U.S.C. § 277 (1970). But where only reserve officers were being considered, there was no opportunity for discrimination.”
Doyle v. United States, 220 Ct. Cl. 285 (Ct. Cl. 1979). “10 U.S.C. § 277 declares: "Laws applying to both Regulars and Reserves shall be administered without discrimination— "(1) among Regulars; "(2) among Reserves; and "(3) between Regulars and Reserves.”
McCarron v. United States, 12 Cl. Ct. 582 (Ct. Cl. 1987). “§ 1371 (1976); 10 U.S.C. § 277 (1976), and the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.”
Dilley v. Alexander, 603 F.2d 914 (D.C. Cir. 1979). “Rec. 13159 (remarks of Rep. Van Zandt). . There are other provisions in the Code directly prohibiting such bias.”
Laningham v. United States, 2 Cl. Ct. 535 (Ct. Cl. 1983). “Also, they appear to raise an issue of discrimina *558 tion between regulars and reservists, in violation of 10 U.S.C. § 277 , but plaintiff has neither briefed nor argued the point and therefore we will not consider it.”
Gregory Alberico v. The United States, 783 F.2d 1024 (Fed. Cir. 1986). “The parties did not cite 10 U.S.C. § 277 (1982) as arguably applicable, but even so we think that it would not be in the particular circumstances of this case.”
Stewart v. United States, 222 Ct. Cl. 42 (Ct. Cl. 1979). “Further, it is provided by 10 U.S.C. § 277 (1976), as follows: Laws applying to both Regulars and Reserves shall be administered without discrimination— (1) among Regulars; (2) among Reserves; and (3) between Regulars and Reserves.”
Private Paul v. Winters, Jr. v. United States of Am., Major Gen. Louis J. Fields, 412 F.2d 140 (9th Cir. 1969). “Winters attacks Marine Corps Bulletin 1001R, which prescribed 100% participation in reserve drills, as violating the provisions of 10 U.S.C. § 277 . 5 This point was not raised in the New York litigation.”
Baker v. United States, 34 Fed. Cl. 645 (Fed. Cl. 1995). “The parties cross-moved on the following counts in the amended complaint: Count 1 — alleging that the *649 Department of the Air Force’s (the “Air Force”) SERB violated plaintiffs’ constitutional right to equal protection guaranteed under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth…”
Evensen v. United States, 228 Ct. Cl. 207 (Ct. Cl. 1981). “The promotion of reserve officers serving on active duty (such as plaintiff) is governed, not by statute, but by regulations, Standing Operating Procedures (SOPs), and Letters of Instruction, as well as by the broad policies established by legislation such as sections 3442(c)…”
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.