Theresa Milliken v. J. F. Gleason, Jr., 332 F.2d 122 (1st Cir. 1964). · Go Syfert
Search
Theresa Milliken v. J. F. Gleason, Jr., 332 F.2d 122 (1st Cir. 1964). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
65 citation events (4 in the last 25 years) across 28 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Bowden v. Structured Investments Co. (In re Bowden), 315 B.R. 903 (Bankr. W.D. Wash. 2004)
Treatment trajectory · 1964 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1964 1995 2026
Statutes interpreted (leading-cases list)
#3 38 U.S.C. § 3503 cited 1× in this case · 19 total citations of statute
How cited ↗
Cited for
At page 123 Reviewing administrative finality of veterans' benefits decisions21 citing cases“veterans' benefits are gratuities and establish no vested rights in the recipients so that they may be withdrawn or at least withheld by congress at any time and under such conditions as congress may impose.”2 citing courts quote it · passage not found verbatim in the opinion (90%) · 19 listed here
  • Bowden v. Structured Investments Co. (In re Bowden), 315 B.R. 903 (Bankr. W.D. Wash. 2004).published
    (veterans’ benefits are gratuities and establish no vested rights in the recipients)
  • Matter of Marriage of Reinauer, 946 S.W.2d 853 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1997).published
    And, because the payment of same lay within the discretion of Congress (which discretion may be extended or revoked at will), id.; Milliken v. Gleason, 332 F.2d 122, 123 (1st Cir.1964) cert. denied, 379 U.S. 1002 , 85 S.Ct. 723 , 13 L.Ed.2…
  • Schism v. United States, 972 F. Supp. 1398 (N.D. Fla. 1997).published 2 cites
    “Such noncontractual benefits may be redistributed or withdrawn at any time in the discretion of Congress.” See also Zucker v. United States, 758 F.2d 637, 638 (Fed.Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 842 , 106 S.Ct. 129 , 88 L.Ed.2d 105 (1985);…
  • Bradley v. Vets., 106 F.3d 383 (1st Cir. 1997).unpublished 2 cites
    See, e.g., Zuspann v. Brown, 60 F.3d 1156, 1159 (5th Cir.1995), cert. denied, 116 S.Ct. 909 (1996); Sugrue v. Derwinski, 26 F.3d 8, 11 (2d Cir.1994), cert. denied, 115 S.Ct. 2245 (1995); Larrabee by Jones v. Derwinski, 968 F.2d 1497, 1500-…
  • Frank Hoffman, Etc. v. City of Warwick, Renauld Langlois, Etc. v. City of East Providence, 909 F.2d 608 (1st Cir. 1990).published
    See Monaco *617 v. United States, 523 F.2d 935, 939 (9th Cir.1975) (Veterans Preference Act, which gave veterans preference to retention in civil service, did not confer “a vested, unre-pealable” right to such preference), cert. denied, 42…
  • William T. Higgins v. John R. Kelley, 824 F.2d 690 (8th Cir. 1987).published
    See De Rodulfa v. United States, 461 F.2d 1240, 1257 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 949 , 93 S.Ct. 270 , 34 L.Ed.2d 220 (1972); Milliken v. Gleason, 332 F.2d 122, 123 (1st Cir.1964) (per curiam), ce rt. denied, 379 U.S. 1002 , 85 S.Ct.…
  • Sec'y of Labor of Commonwealth v. Turnage, 657 F. Supp. 1033 (D.P.R. 1987).published
    Milliken v. Gleason, 332 F.2d 122, 123 (1st Cir.1964), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 1002, 85 S.Ct. 723 , 13 L.Ed.2d 703 (1965).
  • Eugene Traynor v. Harry W. Walters, 791 F.2d 226 (2d Cir. 1986).published 2 cites
    See Walters v. National Association of Radiation Survivors, — U.S. —, 105 S.Ct. 3180, 3182 , 87 L.Ed.2d 220 (1985) (“Ojudicial review of VA decisions is precluded by statute”); Pappanikoloaou v. Administrator of the Veterans Administration…
  • Isobel Moore v. Donald E. Johnson, 582 F.2d 1228 (9th Cir. 1978).published
    See Anderson v. Veterans Administration, 559 F.2d 935 (5th Cir. 1977); Langston v. Johnson, 156 U.S.App.D.C. 5 , 6, 8, 478 F.2d 915 , 916, 918 (1973); Milliken v. Gleason, 332 F.2d 122, 123 (1st Cir. 1964), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 1002 , 85…
  • Am. Training Servs., Inc. v. Vets. Admin., 434 F. Supp. 988 (D.N.J. 1977).published
    The De Rodulfa court traces the well-established line of cases sanctioning the special power of the sovereign to administer the veterans benefits programs with almost unbridled discretion, because “veterans’ benefits are gratuities and est…
Show 9 more citing cases
  • Francis v. Cleland, 433 F. Supp. 605 (D.S.D. 1977).published
    Milliken v. Gleason, 332 F.2d 122, 123 (1st Cir.1964), cert. denied 379 U.S. 1002 , 85 S.Ct. 723 , 13 L.Ed.2d 703 (1965).
  • Ziviak v. United States, 411 F. Supp. 416 (D. Mass. 1976).published
    Milliken v. Gleason, 332 F.2d 122, 123 (1st Cir. 1964), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 1002 , 85 S.Ct. 723 , 13 L.Ed.2d 703 (1965).
  • Cieliczka v. Johnson, 363 F. Supp. 453 (E.D. Mich. 1973).published 2 cites
    This judicial acquiescence rests in large part on the theory that "veterans' benefits are gratuities and establish no vested rights in the recipients so that they may be withdrawn [or at least withheld] by Congress at any time and under su…
  • Patrocinia L. Vda De Rodulfa v. United States of Am. & Adm'r of Vets. Affairs, Juliana Caparas Vda Del Rosario v. United States of Am. & Donald E. Johnson, Adm'r of Vets. Affairs, 461 F.2d 1240 (D.C. Cir. 1972).published 6 cites
    Co., 103 U.S.App.D.C. 125, 127 , 255 F.2d 534, 536 (1958) 101 Milliken v. Gleason, supra note 98, 332 F.2d at 123 .
  • De Rodulfa v. United States, 461 F.2d 1240 (D.C. Cir. 1972).published 5 cites
    Milliken v. Gleason, 332 F.2d 122, 123 (1st Cir. 1964), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 1002 , 85 S.Ct. 723 , 13 L.Ed.2d 703 (1965); Smith v. United States, 83 F.2d 631, 639 (8th Cir. 1936); United States v. Robinson, 103 F.2d 713, 715 (9th Cir. 19…
  • Joseph W. Disilvestro v. United States, 405 F.2d 150 (2d Cir. 1968).published
    Lynch v. United States, supra; Redfield v. Driver, 364 F.2d 812, 813 (9th Cir.1966); Milliken v. Gleason, 332 F.2d 122, 123 (1st Cir.1964), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 1002 , 85 S.Ct. 723 , 13 L.Ed.2d 703 (1965); Barefield v. Byrd, 320 F.2d 455…
  • DiSilvestro v. United States, 405 F.2d 150 (2d Cir. 1968).published
    Lynch v. United States, supra; Redfield v. Driver, 364 F.2d 812, 813 (9th Cir.1966); Milliken v. Gleason, 332 F.2d 122, 123 (1st Cir.1964), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 1002 , 85 S.Ct. 723 , 13 L.Ed.2d 703 (1965); Barefield v. Byrd, 320 F.2d 455…
  • Di Silvestro v. United States, 268 F. Supp. 516 (E.D.N.Y. 1966).published
    Milliken v. Gleason, 332 F.2d 122, 123 (1st Cir. *520 1964), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 1002 , 85 S.Ct. 723 , 13 L.Ed.2d 703 (1965); Sinlao v. United States, 106 U.S.App.D.C. 263 , 271 F.2d 846, 848 (1959).
  • Hagen v. Hagen, 282 S.W.3d 899 (Tex. 2009).published 2 cites
    Id.; see also Milliken v. Gleason, 332 F.2d 122, 123 (1st Cir.1964), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 1002 , 85 S.Ct. 723 , 13 L.Ed.2d 703 (1965) (holding that because the payment of VA disability compensation is at the discretion of the United Stat…
Other citing cases1 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Theresa MILLIKEN, Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
J. F. GLEASON, Jr., in His Capacity as Administrator of Veterans’ Affairs, Defendant, Appellee
6266.
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
May 21, 1964.
Published opinion
332 F.2d 122
1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 5306
Milton Stanzler, Providence, R. I., with whom Richard A. Skolnik and Abedon, Michaelson & Stanzler, Providence, R. I., were on brief, for appellant., Alan S. Rosenthal, Atty., Dept. of Justice, with whom John W. Douglas, Asst. Atty. Gen., Raymond J. Pettine, U. S. Atty., and J. F. Bishop, Atty., Dept, of Justice, were on brief, for appellee.
Woodbury, Hartigan, Aldrich.
Cited by 52 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal in forma pauperis from an order of the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island dismissing an amended complaint. The complaint is cast in the form of a petition for declaratory judgment under Title 28 U.S.C. § 2201 and is in two counts. It challenges action of the Board[*123] •on Waivers and Forfeitures affirmed by the Board of Veterans’ Appeals forfeiting pension benefits under laws administered by the Veterans’ Administration for fraud as provided in Title 38 U.S.C. § 3503(a). The first count alleges facts which it is asserted disclose an error in the application of pertinent law. In the second count the appellant seeks a •declaration that she “was deprived of her •constitutional and civil rights” by the illegal seizure and use of evidence against her and by the intimidation and physical assault upon her by an agent of the Administrator of Veterans’ Affairs and a •declaration that she had been deprived of •due process of law because of inade•quacies of administrative hearing procedures. Wherefore as relief the plaintiff seeks a declaration that the administrative action forfeiting her pension rights for fraud is null and void.

Regardless of its form the plaintiff-appellant’s suit is in clear purpose and effect one to have reviewed and set aside an order of the Veterans’ Administration termininating pension benefits theretofore paid to her. But Title 38 U.S.C. § 211(a) provides with exceptions of no present materiality that “ * * decisions of the Administrator on any question of law or fact concerning a claim for benefits or payments under any law administered by the Veterans’ Administration shall be final and conclusive and no other official or any court of the United States shall have power or jurisdiction to review any such decision.” This command is categorical, and it is within the power of Congress to issue the command for when it creates rights in an individual against the United States it is “under no obligation to provide a remedy through the courts”, United States v. Babcock, 250 U.S. 328, 331, 39 S.Ct. 464, 465, 63 L.Ed. 1011 (1919), but may “provide only an administrative remedy.” Tutun v. United States, 270 U.S. 568, 576, 46 S.Ct. 425, 70 L.Ed. 738 (1926). See Marshall v. Crotty, 185 F.2d 622, 628 (C.A.1, 1950).

Moreover, veterans’ benefits are gratuities and establish no vested rights in the recipients so that they may be withdrawn by Congress at any time and under such conditions as Congress may impose.

We affirm on Van Horne v. Hines, 74 App.D.C. 214, 122 F.2d 207, cert. denied, 314 U.S. 689, 62 S.Ct. 360, 86 L.Ed. 552 (1941); Sinlao v. United States, 106 U.S.App.D.C. 263, 271 F.2d 846 (1959) and Barefield v. Byrd, 320 F.2d 455 (C.A.5, 1963), cert. denied, 376 U.S. 928, 84 S.Ct. 675, 11 L.Ed.2d 624 (1964), and eases cited. Wellman v. Whittier, 104 U.S.App.D.C. 6, 259 F.2d 163 (1958), on which the appellant relies, is quite different in its facts and is readily distinguishable.

Judgment will be entered affirming the order of the District Court.