10 U.S.C. § 2735
Settlement: final and conclusive
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the settlement of a claim under section 2733, 2733a, 2734, 2734a, 2734b, or 2737 of this title is final and conclusive.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 33
cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1978–2026 · leading case: Michael Schneider Roisin Schneider, Individually & as Guardians of Slaine Schneider v. United States, 27 F.3d 1327 (8th Cir. 1994).
Michael Schneider Roisin Schneider, Individually & as Guardians of Slaine Schneider v. United States, 27 F.3d 1327 (8th Cir. 1994). “§ 1331 because the denial of a settlement is unreviewable by the terms of the Military Claims Act, see 10 U.S.C. § 2735 , and the Schneiders had not raised any valid constitutional claim.”
Louis J. Rodrigue, Adm'r of the Est. of William J. Rodrigue v. United States, 968 F.2d 1430 (1st Cir. 1992). “§ 2675 , the MCA, 10 U.S.C. § 2735 , provides as follows: *1432 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the settlement [ 1 ] of a claim under section 2733 .”
Massie v. United States, 40 Fed. Cl. 151 (Fed. Cl. 1997). “3 The Military Claims Act also includes language in 10 U.S.C. § 2735 , which states that: Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the settlement of a claim under section 2733, 2734, 2734a, 2734b, or 2737 of this title is final and conclusive.”
Flowers v. United States, 75 Fed. Cl. 615 (Fed. Cl. 2007). “The binding precedent of the Federal Circuit provides that 10 U.S.C. § 2735 precludes judicial review of the military’s disallowance of a claim under the MCA, absent a constitutional claim.”
Vogelaar v. United States, 665 F. Supp. 1295 (E.D. Mich. 1987). “10 U.S.C. § 2735 . Plaintiff contends that this prohibition violates the due process clause of the fifth amendment as applied to this case, because the determination of this Court where the acts or omissions occurred might result in a “catch-22” if contrary to the administrative…”
Shull v. United States, 228 Ct. Cl. 750 (Ct. Cl. 1981). “At least one reported federal court decision has reached this conclusion as to 31 U.”
Leola M. Broadnax v. United States Army. Leola M. Broadnax v. U.S. Army Hosp. Nuremberg, 710 F.2d 865 (D.C. Cir. 1983). “The court found the first, the Federal Tort Claims Act, inapplicable by its own terms to negligent acts committed in a foreign country. See 28 U.”
Bryson v. United States, 463 F. Supp. 908 (E.D. Pa. 1978). “It suggests that plaintiff submitted a claim under this act to the United States Army Claims Service and that decisions of that Service are “final and conclusive” under 10 U.S.C. § 2735 2 In support of this argument, the Government cites Macomber v.”
Towry v. United States, 459 F. Supp. 101 (E.D. La. 1978). “As we have noted, the “Secretary concerned” under the claims acts involved herein is authorized by the Military Claims Act to “report to Congress for its consideration” an excess claim if he “considers that a claim in excess of $25,000.”
Murphy ex rel. Est. of Payne v. United States, 340 F. Supp. 2d 160 (D. Conn. 2004). “# 10] asserts that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the complaint under 10 U.S.C. § 2735 , which provides that “[n]otwithstanding any other provision of law, the settlement of a claim under [the MCA] is final and conclusive.”
Hass v. United States Air Force, 848 F. Supp. 926 (D. Kan. 1994). “This court, however, is bound by the language of 10 U.S.C. § 2735 , which states that “the settlement of a claim under section 2733 .”
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. United States, 71 Fed. Cl. 236 (Fed. Cl. 2006). “") (citing 10 U.S.C. § 2735 ). The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit also held that the language of Sections 2731 and 2735 was identical to language in the Military Personnel and Civilian Employees Act of 1964, 31 U.”
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.