10 U.S.C. § 278

Nonpreemption of other law

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

Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to limit the authority of the executive branch in the use of military personnel or equipment for civilian law enforcement purposes beyond that provided by law before December 1, 1981.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases, 1984–2003 · leading case: Norman A. Foster & Charles T. Heimerdinger v. United States, Ronald R. Olson v. United States, 733 F.2d 88 (Fed. Cir. 1984).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Norman A. Foster & Charles T. Heimerdinger v. United States, Ronald R. Olson v. United States, 733 F.2d 88 (Fed. Cir. 1984). · cites it 2× “Appellants argue that by failing to notify them of the composition of the promotion boards, the Air Force violated 10 U.S.C. § 278 . The Act is entitled “Dissemination of information,” and provides: The Secretary of Defense shall require the complete and current dissemination,…”

Koretsky v. United States, 57 Fed. Cl. 154 (Fed. Cl. 2003). · cites it 2× “He also alleged that such failure to advise was contrary to 10 U.S.C. § 278 , 2 which provided that the Secretary of Defense “shall require the complete and current dissemination to all Reserves and to the public of information of interest to reserve components.”

Breitzke v. United States, 9 Cl. Ct. 79 (Ct. Cl. 1985). · cites it 2× “§ 277 ; and that an actionable breach of 10 U.S.C. § 278 , obligating the Secretary of Defense to require the “complete and current dissemination * * * of information of interest to the reserve components” occurred.”

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.