10 U.S.C. § 1048

Gratuity payment to persons discharged for fraudulent enlistment

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 10 CasesGoogle Scholar

The Secretary concerned may pay a gratuity of not to exceed $25 to a person discharged for fraudulent enlistment.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 7 cases, 1994–2004 · leading case: Steiner v. Steiner, 788 So. 2d 771 (Miss. 2001).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Steiner v. Steiner, 788 So. 2d 771 (Miss. 2001). “2d 675 (1989) in which the Court interpreted the Uniform Services Former Spouses' Protection Act (USFSPA), 10 U.S.C. §§ 1048 et seq. The U.S. Supreme Court held in Mansell that "the U.”

Marriage of Blair v. Blair, 894 P.2d 958 (Mont. 1995). · cites it 2× “10 U.S.C. § 1048 (a)(4)(B). No such expression was enacted for military retirement waived to receive special separation benefits under 10 U.”

In Re the Marriage Bowman, 972 S.W.2d 635 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 2× “This court agrees with the interpretation of the Supreme Court of Idaho that 10 U.S.C. § 1048 (e)(1) sets a fifty percent cap on retired pay awarded to former spouses.”

Baker v. Baker (In Re Baker), 274 B.R. 176 (Bankr. D.S.C. 2000). · cites it 2× “10 U.S.C. § 1048 (c)(1). Pursuant to 10 U.”

Padot v. Padot, 891 So. 2d 1079 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). “NOTES [1] Since Mansell , 10 U.S.C. § 1048 has been amended to refer to "disposable retired pay," and retired pay is defined to include retainer pay; however, the amendment does not affect the result here.”

Chandler v. United States, 31 Fed. Cl. 106 (Fed. Cl. 1994). “10 U.S.C.A. § 1048 n.(a) (1983). The court order authorizing the USAFAC to make direct payments to Rachel Chandler was the Bankruptcy Court’s order which was entered in 1985.”

Meche v. Meche, 635 So. 2d 614 (La. Ct. App. 1994). “Because of the reopening of cases which were decided prior to the enactment of the USFSPA, Congress added the second sentence of 10 U.S.C. § 1048 (c)(1). That sentence is designed to limit the retroactivity of McCarty by preventing former spouses from reopening a case in which…”

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.