42 U.S.C. § 2112

Foreign distribution of byproduct material

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 42 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Cooperation with other Nations

The Commission is authorized to cooperate with any nation by distributing byproduct material, and to distribute byproduct material, pursuant to the terms of an agreement for cooperation to which such nation is party and which is made in accordance with section 2153 of this title.

(b) Distribution to individuals

The Commission is also authorized to distribute byproduct material to any person outside the United States upon application therefor by such person and demand such charge for such material as would be charged for the material if it were distributed within the United States: Provided, however, That the Commission shall not distribute any such material to any person under this section if, in its opinion, such distribution would be inimical to the common defense and security: And provided further, That the Commission may require such reports regarding the use of material distributed pursuant to the provisions of this section as it deems necessary.

The Commission is authorized to license others to distribute byproduct material to any person outside the United States under the same conditions, except as to charges, as would be applicable if the material were distributed by the Commission.

(Aug. 1, 1946, ch. 724, title I, § 82, as added Aug. 30, 1954, ch. 1073, § 1, 68 Stat. 935; renumbered title I, Pub. L. 102–486, title IX, § 902(a)(8), Oct. 24, 1992, 106 Stat. 2944.)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2009–2024 · leading case: Coffman v. Indianapolis Fire Dep't, 578 F.3d 559 (7th Cir. 2009).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Coffman v. Indianapolis Fire Dep't, 578 F.3d 559 (7th Cir. 2009). “” 42 U.S.C. § 2112 (d)(4)(A). The ADA also allows inquiries “into the ability of an employee to perform job-related functions.”

Pamon v. Bd. of Trs. of Univ., 483 F. App'x 296 (7th Cir. 2012). “” 42 U.S.C. § 2112 (d)(4)(A); see Coffman v.”

Williams v. Apple Inc. (D.D.C. 2024). “, for its alleged failure to accommodate her disability in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 2112 et seq. Dkt. 1 at 4–5 (Compl.”

Lacroix v. Boston Police Dep't (D. Mass. 2022). “e-Callender (“Payne-Callender”), the Boston Police Patrolmen’s Association (“BPPA”), the Boston Police Detectives Benevolent Society (“BPDBS”) and the Boston Police Superior Officers Federation (“BPSOF”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) have filed this lawsuit against the Boston…”

Wade Pamon v. Bd. of Trs. of (7th Cir. 2012). “” 42 U.S.C. § 2112 (d)(4)(A); see Coffman v.”

Tonya Coffman v. Indianapolis Fire Dep't (7th Cir. 2009). “” 42 U.S.C. § 2112 (d)(4)(A). The ADA also allows inquiries “into the ability of an employee to perform job-related functions.”

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.