10 U.S.C. § 2732

Payment of claims: availability of appropriations

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

Appropriations available to the Department of Defense for operation and maintenance may be used for payment of claims authorized by law to be paid by the Department of Defense (except for civil functions), including—(1) claims for damages arising under training contracts with carriers; and(2) repayment of amounts determined by the Secretary concerned to have been erroneously collected—(A) from military and civilian personnel of the Department of Defense; or(B) from States or territories or the District of Columbia (or members of the National Guard units thereof).(Added Pub. L. 101–510, div. A, title XIV, § 1481(j)(1), Nov. 5, 1990, 104 Stat. 1708.)Editorial NotesPrior Provisions

Provisions similar to those in this section were contained in Pub. L. 100–463, title VIII, § 8098, Oct. 1, 1988, 102 Stat. 2270–35, which was set out as a note under section 2241 of this title, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 101–510, § 1481(j)(3).

A prior section 2732, acts Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 152; Sept. 2, 1958, Pub. L. 85–861, §§ 1(53), 33(a)(16), 72 Stat. 1461, 1565; Sept. 15, 1965, Pub. L. 89–185, § 1, 79 Stat. 789, related to settlement of property loss incident to service, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 88–558, § 5(3), Aug. 31, 1964, 78 Stat. 768, effective two years from Aug. 31, 1964. See section 3701 et seq. of Title 31, Money and Finance.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases, 1959–2015 · leading case: Stathis v. United States, 120 Fed. Cl. 552 (Fed. Cl. 2015).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Stathis v. United States, 120 Fed. Cl. 552 (Fed. Cl. 2015). “”) In accordance with this interpretation, the MCA does not specify the method or frequency of payment, but rather signals the source of payments: “Appropriations available to the Department of Defense for operation and maintenance may be used for payment of claims authorized by…”

Gursley v. United States, 232 F. Supp. 614 (D. Colo. 1964). “VanLith, though he has an administrative remedy provided by the Military Personnel Claims Act, 10 U.S.C. § 2732 , is precluded from maintaining an action under the Federal Tort Claims Act.”

Holcombe v. United States, 176 F. Supp. 297 (E.D. Va. 1959). “…other than to demonstrate the Congressional intent. 2 . See United States v. Forfari, 9 Cir., 268 F.2d 29 . * Now 10 U.S.C.A. §§ 2732 , 2735.”

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.