10 U.S.C. § 672
Reference to chapter 1209
Provisions of law relating to service of members of reserve components on active duty are set forth in chapter 1209 of this title (beginning with section 12301).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 59
cases, 1956–2009 · leading case: Perpich v. United States Dep't of Def., 880 F.2d 11 (8th Cir. 1989).
Perpich v. United States Dep't of Def., 880 F.2d 11 (8th Cir. 1989). “10 U.S.C. § 672 (b), (d) (1982). 1 In response, Congress enacted the Montgomery Amendment, which prohibits the governors from withholding consent to active duty outside the United States because of objections to the location, purpose, type, or schedule of active duty.”
Dukakis v. United States Dep't of Def., 686 F. Supp. 30 (D. Mass. 1988). “Plaintiffs’ complaint asks this court to declare the Montgomery Amendment, 10 U.S.C. § 672 (f), unconstitutional under the Militia Training Clause, U.”
Perpich v. Dep't of Def., 496 U.S. 334 (1990). “These provisions, as amended, are now codified at 10 U. S. C. §§ 672 (b) and 672(d). 2 The Montgomery Amendment was enacted as § 522 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1987, Pub.”
United States v. Hudson, 5 M.J. 413 (1978). “We conclude that the actions taken attached jurisdiction over him before the date of his scheduled return to non-active duty status, and sustained continuation of the court-martial proceedings after that date.”
Kelly Butterbaugh, Roseanne T. Faltin, John C. Marderness, Robert J. Bono v. Dep't of Just., 336 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2003). “The 15-day training requirements were codified at 10 U.S.C. § 672 (b) (1958) and 32 U.S.C. § 502 (a)(2) (1958).”
United States v. Self, 13 M.J. 132 (1982). “Authority to order a State’s national guardsman to active duty lies with the State’s Governor, 10 U.S.C. § 672 (d), or its adjutant general, para.”
United States v. Peel, 4 M.J. 28 (1977). “6 Such constitutional foundation is reflected in the congressional fiat of 10 U.S.C. § 672 (d): At any time, an authority designated by the Secretary concerned may order a member of a reserve component under his jurisdiction to active duty, or retain him on active duty, with the…”
Jerome Jablon, M.D. v. United States, 657 F.2d 1064 (9th Cir. 1981). “4 The traditional distinction between negative and mandatory action may be eroding, but in this ease the distinction is important. An additional consideration is that the armed services should not be encouraged to assign soldiers or to base active duty calls upon considerations…”
William Daniel Nicholson, Iii, Cross-Appellant v. Harold Brown, Sec'y of Def., Cross-Appellees, 599 F.2d 639 (5th Cir. 1979). “10 U.S.C. § 672 (d), however, authorizes the Secretary of the Air Force to “order a member of a reserve component under his jurisdiction to active duty, or to retain him on active duty, with the consent of that member.”
Perpich v. United States Dep't of Def., 666 F. Supp. 1319 (D. Minnesota 1987). “In the Armed Forces Reserve Act of 1952, Congress enacted forerunners of the current gubernatorial consent provisions of 10 U.S.C. §§ 672 (b) and 672(d). Act of July 9, 1952, ch.”
Bates v. United States, 34 Fed. Cl. 51 (Fed. Cl. 1995). “On September 28, the plaintiff was ordered to active duty (pursuant to 10 U.S.C. §§ 672 (d), 682 (1988) 3 ) for 139 days of service commencing October 1,1990, and ending February 16, 1991.”
United States v. Wilson, 53 M.J. 327 (C.A.A.F. 2000). “During this period of active federal military service, appellant engaged in the acts of misconduct that led to the charges in the present case.”
— 10 U.S.C. § 672(d) — 1 case
Yount v. State, 774 S.W.2d 919 (Tenn. 1989).
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.