Legal Opinion
Caruso v. Toothaker
District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
Decided September 3, 1971No. Civ. 71-301PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
MUIR, District Judge.
Leicester F. Caruso, a private in the Army National Guard, brings this suit seeking injunctive relief from an order of the Department of the Army directing him to report for active duty in the United States Army for 18 months and 17 days. Jurisdiction is predicated upon 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1361. After a hearing and argument, we deny the application for a preliminary injunction.
10 U.S.C. § 673a 1 confers authority on the President to order to active duty any member of the Ready Reserve of an armed force who is not “participating satisfactorily” in a unit of the…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Kennedy v. Mendoza-MartinezSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- Orloff v. WilloughbySupreme Court of the United States · 1953
- Gonzales v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1955
- Winters v. United StatesDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1968
- John C. O'Mara v. Captain William Zebrowski, U.S.A.R., Commanding Officer and the Honorable Stanley Resor, Secretary of the ArmyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1971
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Timothy Wayne Hall v. Edward R. Fry, Lieutenant General, the Adjutant General, State of Kansas, and Robert F. Froehlke, Secretary of ArmyCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1975
- Feeny v. SmithDistrict Court, D. Utah · 1973
- Hoersch v. FroehlkeDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1974
- Sullivan v. MannDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 1977
- Febus Nevárez v. SchlesingerDistrict Court, D. Puerto Rico · 1977
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.