10 U.S.C. § 673a
Renumbered § 12303]
[renumbered]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 62
cases, 1968–2006 · leading case: Pfile v. Corcoran, 287 F. Supp. 554 (D. Colo. 1968).
Pfile v. Corcoran, 287 F. Supp. 554 (D. Colo. 1968). “As grounds for his claim that his detention on active duty is illegal, petitioner asserts his enlistment in the Army Reserve constituted a contract with the United States, and that the terms of this contract prevent the Army from calling him to active duty for longer than a…”
Fox v. Brown, 402 F.2d 837 (2d Cir. 1968). “980, which was codified in 1967, 10 U.S.C. § 673a, and is the *839 authority for the order which is at issue in the present case.”
John C. O'Mara v. Captain William Zebrowski, U.S.A.R., Commanding Officer & the Honorable Stanley Resor, Sec'y of the Army, 447 F.2d 1085 (3rd Cir. 1971). “135-91(12); 10 U.S.C. § 673a (Supp. V, 1969). Prior to requesting that a member who fails to participate satisfactorily be ordered to active duty, the unit commander must determine if “any cogent or emergency reasons existed which prevented the member from attending” the drill…”
Thomas C. Smith, Appellant-Petitioner v. Stanley S. Resor, Sec'y of the Army, Appellee-Respondent, 406 F.2d 141 (2d Cir. 1969). “Pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 673a and the applicable regulations five unsatisfactory performances rendered a reservist liable to be called up for active duty for a period not to exceed a total of twenty-four months.”
Winters v. United States, 281 F. Supp. 289 (E.D.N.Y 1968). “” The substance of Public Law 89-687 so far as it affects plaintiff was on June 30, 1967, re-enacted as 10 U.S.C. § 673a, including the provision requiring appropriate consideration for the enlistee’s family responsibilities and employment.”
Robert S. Antonuk v. United States of Am., 445 F.2d 592 (6th Cir. 1971). “In December 1969 he was ordered to report for active duty on January 13, 1970, pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 673a, on the grounds that Re had accumulated *594 more than five unexcused absences from scheduled drills during a one-year period.”
James E. Dix v. A. P. Rollins, Jr., Maj. Gen., U. S. A., 413 F.2d 711 (8th Cir. 1969). “On October 15, 1966, Congress passed Public Law 89-687, later codified as 10 U.S.C. § 673a, 1 which authorized the President to order to active duty any member of the Ready Reserve who was “not assigned to or participating satisfactorily in” a Ready Reserve Unit, had not…”
Santos v. Franklin, 493 F. Supp. 847 (E.D. Pa. 1980). “Petitioner was called to active duty for a period of sixteen months under the authority of 10 U.S.C. § 673a because he failed to attend the requisite number of training drills.”
Pvt. E2 Donald Jack Anderson, Ng26382581 v. Melvin Laird, 437 F.2d 912 (7th Cir. 1971). “1967), 10 U.S.C. § 673a. “Satisfactory participation” is defined in Army Regulation 135-91, dealing specifically with reserve components, and Army Regulation 600-20, dealing with all components.”
Mickey v. Barclay, 328 F. Supp. 1108 (E.D. Pa. 1971). “Barkley (incorrectly named Barclay in the caption), and the Commandant of the Marine Corps seeking to void an order issued pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 673a 1 ordering him to report for involuntary active duty for 16 months.”
Richard E. Keister, Jr., Private (E-2) v. The Honorable Stanley Resor, Sec'y of the Army, 462 F.2d 471 (3rd Cir. 1972). “] Paragraph IV B 1 thereof provides simply that an unsatisfactory participant in a Ready Reserve unit will be ordered to active duty as authorized by 10 U.S.C. § 673a and Executive Order 11366.”
Harris v. Kaine, 352 F. Supp. 769 (S.D.N.Y. 1972). “, color and style of his clothing) which bear no relationship to his satisfactory participation in reserve meetings and the regulation of which is clearly outside the scope of the authority conferred upon defendants by 10 U.S.C. § 673a (1970). 8 And while this Court *775 clearly…”
— 10 U.S.C. § 673a(a) — 6 cases
Bruce Friedman v. Robert F. Froehlke, Sec'y of the Army, 470 F.2d 1351 (1st Cir. 1972).
Hoersch v. Froehlke, 382 F. Supp. 1235 (E.D. Pa. 1974).
Cossey v. Seamans, 344 F. Supp. 1368 (W.D. Okla. 1972).
Fox v. Brown, 402 F.2d 837 (2d Cir. 1968). “980, which was codified in 1967, 10 U.S.C. § 673a, and is the *839 authority for the order which is at issue in the present case.”
Arthur S. Kurlan v. Howard H. Callaway, Sec'y of the Army, 510 F.2d 274 (2d Cir. 1974).
— 10 U.S.C. § 673a(b) — 3 cases
Joachim Hagopian v. Major Gen. William Knowlton, 470 F.2d 201 (2d Cir. 1972).
Fox v. Brown, 402 F.2d 837 (2d Cir. 1968). “980, which was codified in 1967, 10 U.S.C. § 673a, and is the *839 authority for the order which is at issue in the present case.”
Schwartz v. Franklin, 412 F.2d 736 (9th Cir. 1969).
— 10 U.S.C. § 673a(c) — 3 cases
McSweeney v. United States, 338 F. Supp. 350 (N.D. Ohio 1971).
Santos v. Franklin, 493 F. Supp. 847 (E.D. Pa. 1980). “Petitioner was called to active duty for a period of sixteen months under the authority of 10 U.S.C. § 673a because he failed to attend the requisite number of training drills.”
Giardina v. Ambrose, 301 F. Supp. 326 (D. Mass. 1969).
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.