10 U.S.C. § 8622 — Naval Historical Center Fund: references to Fund

submitted 70 years ago by ch. 1041 to r/title-10-ARMED-FORCES · 48 words · no verdicts yet

in plain englishAI-generated · not legal advice

This section renames an old Navy fund. The 'Naval Historical Center Fund' no longer exists on its own. Any old reference to it now means the Department of the Navy General Gift Fund instead.

This section deals with an old fund called the Naval Historical Center Fund, which used to be run under this same section of the law. That fund no longer exists separately. Instead, whenever any law, regulation, document, or other government record mentions the Naval Historical Center Fund, that mention is treated as referring to a different fund: the Department of the Navy General Gift Fund, which is set up under section 2601 of this title. In effect, this section redirects all old references so the law stays consistent even though the fund's name and legal home changed.

the actual law source: uscode.house.gov ↗public domain

Any reference in a law, regulation, document, paper, or other record of the United States to the Naval Historical Center Fund formerly maintained under this section shall be deemed to refer to the Department of the Navy General Gift Fund maintained under section 2601 of this title.

Source credit: (Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 446, § 7222; Pub. L. 104–201, div. A, title X, § 1073(b)(1), (2)(A), Sept. 23, 1996, 110 Stat. 2657; Pub. L. 106–398, § 1 [[div. A], title IX, § 942(d)(2)], Oct. 30, 2000, 114 Stat. 1654, 1654A–242; renumbered § 8622, Pub. L. 115–232, div. A, title VIII, § 807(d)(1), Aug. 13, 2018, 132 Stat. 1836.)

history & why it existsrecord from the source credit

1956Enacted · Act of Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041
1996Amended · Pub. L. 104-201 · 110 Stat. 2657
2000Amended · Pub. L. 106-398 · 114 Stat. 1654, 1654
2018Amended · Pub. L. 115-232 · 132 Stat. 1836

A history note hasn’t been published yet. The record shows enactment by ch. 1041 on 1956-08-10.

all 0 arguments · sorted by: best

no arguments yet — make the first case