10 U.S.C. § 1479

Death gratuity: delegation of determinations, payments

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

For the purpose of making immediate payments under section 1475 of this title, the Secretary concerned shall—(1) authorize the commanding officer of a territorial command, installation, or district in which a survivor of a person covered by that section is residing to determine the beneficiary eligible for the death gratuity; and(2) authorize a disbursing or certifying official of each of those commands, installations, or districts to make the payments to the beneficiary, or certify the payments due them, as the case may be.(Added Pub. L. 85–861, § 1(32)(A), Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1455; amended Pub. L. 97–258, § 2(b)(1)(A), Sept. 13, 1982, 96 Stat. 1052.)

Historical and Revision Notes
Revised section	Source (U.S. Code)	Source (Statutes at Large)
1479	38:1132.	Aug. 1, 1956, ch. 837, § 302, 70 Stat. 868.

The word “territorial” is substituted for the words “military or naval”, since the subsection could only apply to that type of command, installation, or district. Clause (2) is substituted for 38:1132(2).

Editorial NotesAmendments

1982—Par. (2). Pub. L. 97–258 substituted “official” for “officer”.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 18 cases, 1946–1959 · leading case: Hiatt v. Brown, 339 U.S. 103 (1950).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Hiatt v. Brown, 339 U.S. 103 (1950). · cites it 4× “788 , 10 U. S. C. § 1479 . The relevant provision of this article *107 as in force at the time of respondent's trial is set forth in the margin.”

United States v. Gordon, 1 C.M.A. 255 (1952). “The question certified for answer is this: Under the circumstances disclosed in this record of trial, was Brigadier General Lee disqualified to act as convening and reviewing authority in this case? Article of War 8, 10 USC § 1479 , which is controlling in this instance because…”

Leon B. Rushing v. Frederick T. Wilkinson, Warden, United States Penitentiary, Atlanta, Georgia, 272 F.2d 633 (5th Cir. 1959). “628 ; formerly 10 U.S.C. § 1479 ). * The duties of the law member, as set forth in paragraph 40, Manual for Courts-Martial, United States Army, 1949 (3 CFR, 1948 Supp.”

United States v. Berry, 1 C.M.A. 235 (1952). “A portion of Article 8, 10 USC § 1479 , is set out below: “The authority appointing a general court-martial shall detail as one of the members thereof a law member who shall be an officer of the Judge Advocate General’s Corps or an officer who is a member of the bar of a Federal…”

Henry v. Hodges, 76 F. Supp. 968 (S.D.N.Y. 1948). · cites it 2× “Code, 10 U.S.C.A. § 1479 ) in that the officer designated as the law member was not a member of the Judge Advocate General’s Department although a member of such department was available for the purpose.”

Hiatt v. Brown, 175 F.2d 273 (5th Cir. 1949). “The district court found that the court-martial which tried petitioner was illegally constituted and without jurisdiction, for the reason that it was organized in plain disregard of the requirements of the 8th Article of War, Title 10 U.S.C.A. § 1479 , the pertinent provision of…”

Ex parte Campo, 71 F. Supp. 543 (S.D.N.Y. 1947). “The court was appointed by the Commanding General, Delta Base Section, Communications Zone, European Theatre of Operations pursuant to Article 8 of the Articles of War, 10 U.S. C.A. § 1479. At the time the petitioner was charged with violations of the 58th Article of War, 10 U.”

United States v. Davis, 1 C.M.A. 102 (1952). · cites it 2× “Although the instant case is one of first impression, an analogous problem has arisen under the provisions of old Article of War 8, 10 USCA § 1479, and the Manual for Courts-Martial, U.”

Burchfield v. Hiatt, 86 F. Supp. 18 (N.D. Ga. 1949). · cites it 2× “e and during the trial, was not, in the circumstances, legally available for appointment as Law Member of the Court-Martial, so that Lieutenant Colonel Byrne, who, the evidence showed, was not an officer of the Department, but was a lawyer and otherwise qualified to act as Law…”

Fugate v. Hiatt, 86 F. Supp. 22 (N.D. Ga. 1949). · cites it 2× “Respondent further contended that no officer of the Judge Advocate General’s De *24 partment was available and that Article of War 8, 10 U.S.C.A. § 1479 , was legally complied with by the appointment of Colonel Kjeldseth.”

United States v. Jewson, 1 C.M.A. 652 (1952). “Ill Likewise without merit is appellant’s contention that the convening authority was in fact the accuser in contravention of Article of War 8, 10 USC §1479 . The Commanding General, Fifth Army, the convening authority here, directed one Colonel Edwards to investigate the…”

Parker v. Hiatt, 86 F. Supp. 27 (N.D. Ga. 1949). · cites it 2× “The sole ground for writ of habeas corpus alleged by petitioner is that the Court-Martial was without jurisdiction because not legally constituted in that the law member was not an officer of the Judge Advocate General’s Department, as required by the 8th Article of War, 10…”

Show all 18 citing cases →

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.