32 U.S.C. § 102
General policy
In accordance with the traditional military policy of the United States, it is essential that the strength and organization of the Army National Guard and the Air National Guard as an integral part of the first line defenses of the United States be maintained and assured at all times. Whenever Congress determines that more units and organizations are needed for the national security than are in the regular components of the ground and air forces, the Army National Guard of the United States and the Air National Guard of the United States, or such parts of them as are needed, together with such units of other reserve components as are necessary for a balanced force, shall be ordered to active Federal duty and retained as long as so needed.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1969–2026 · leading case: Nelson v. Geringer, 295 F.3d 1082 (10th Cir. 2002).
Nelson v. Geringer, 295 F.3d 1082 (10th Cir. 2002). “32 U.S.C. § 102 (Congress); 10 U.S.C. § 12406 (President).”
In Re Sealed Case, 551 F.3d 1047 (D.C. Cir. 2009). “Though organized in part through the states, the National Guard functions as "an integral part of the first line defenses of the United States," 32 U.S.C. § 102 . Its organization stems from Article I, Section 8 of the U.”
Frank D. Jones v. New York State Div. of Military & Naval Affairs & New York State Army Nat'l Guard, 166 F.3d 45 (2d Cir. 1999). “Although Jones was in a non-aviation unit and was not assigned an aircraft, he continued to fly assault helicopters as part of the Career Development Aviator Program (“CDAP”).”
Perpich v. Dep't of Def., 496 U.S. 334 (1990). “32 U. S. C. § 102 . The State of Minnesota fully supports dual enlistment and has not challenged the concept in any respect.”
Wright v. Park, 5 F.3d 586 (1st Cir. 1993). “” 32 U.S.C. § 102 . Because National Guard technicians serve as the Guard’s support staff and are, in fact, those whose job it is to maintain and assure the Guard’s strength and organization, they are indispensable to this nation’s defense.”
Reid Knutson v. Wisconsin Air Nat'l Guard & Gerald D. Slack, 995 F.2d 765 (7th Cir. 1993). “”); 32 U.S.C. § 102 . Consequently, Butz and Chappell compel the conclusion that National Guard officers are not liable for damages in section 1983 actions.”
Duplan Corp. v. Deering Milliken, Inc., 444 F. Supp. 648 (D.S.C. 1977). “Prior to trial twelve of the patents had been held not infringed on motions for summary judgment, and two of the patents had been held invalid under 32 U.S.C. § 102 (d). Eight patents remain in suit.”
Am. Fed'n of Gov't Employees, Afl-Cio, Local 2953 v. Fed. Labor Relations Auth., 730 F.2d 1534 (D.C. Cir. 1984). “32 U.S.C. § 102 (emphasis added). Because it is a military organization dedicated to a military mission, certain basic assumptions accompany all legislation that deals with the Guard.”
Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 560 F. Supp. 2d 835 (N.D. Cal. 2008). “Abbott has met its burden of producing evidence that the '890 invention was embodied in tangible form in the United States no later than November 1994, well before the March 17, 1995 date to which the Ikeda patent claims priority.”
Jorden v. Nat'l Guard Bureau, 799 F.2d 99 (3d Cir. 1986). “See 32 U.S.C. § 102 (“[I]t is essential that the strength and organization of the Army National Guard and the Air National Guard as an integral part of the first line defense of the United States be maintained and assured at all times.”
Syrek v. Pennsylvania Air Nat'l Guard, 437 F. Supp. 236 (W.D. Pa. 1977). “” 32 U.S.C. § 102 . Plaintiffs suggest, in their brief, that the sole function of the civilian technicians is to care for the equipment loaned to the State by the federal government.”
Georgia Dep't of Def. v. Johnson, 585 S.E.2d 907 (Ga. Ct. App. 2003). “” 32 USC § 102 . Because National Guard technicians serve as the Guard’s support staff and are, in fact, those whose job it is to maintain and assure the Guard’s strength and organization, they are indispensable to this nation’s defense.”
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.