22 U.S.C. § 1641m
Finality of action of Commission
The action of the Commission in allowing or denying any claim under this subchapter shall be final and conclusive on all questions of law and fact and not subject to review by any other official of the United States or by any court by mandamus or otherwise, and the Comptroller General shall allow credit in the accounts of any certifying or disbursing officer for payments in accordance with such action.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1963–2026 · leading case: De Csepel v. Repub. of Hungary, 808 F. Supp. 2d 113 (D.D.C. 2011).
De Csepel v. Repub. of Hungary, 808 F. Supp. 2d 113 (D.D.C. 2011). “) Because the 1955 Claims Amendment (codified at 22 U.S.C. § 1641m) provides that “[t]he action of the Commission in allowing or denying any claim under this title [ 22 U.”
De Csepel v. Repub. of Hungary (D.D.C. 2020). “” 22 U.S.C. §1641m. The First Hungarian Claims Program, which was completed on August 9, 1959, and funded by “the vesting and liquidation of enemy assets which had been blocked by the United States during World War II” (see Scholl-Tatevosyan Decl.”
De Csepel v. Repub. of Hungary (D.D.C. 2023). “” 22 U.S.C. § 1641m; see de Csepel V, 613 F.”
Harold Nebenzal v. Edward D. Re, 407 F.2d 717 (D.C. Cir. 1969). “2d 73 ; applying 22 U.S.C. § 1641m; De Vegvar v. Gillilland, 97 U.”
David De Csepel v. Repub. of Hungary (D.C. Cir. 2026). “” 22 U.S.C. § 1641m. The fact that Erzsébet successfully claimed In the Studio as taken by that point means, from the perspective of U.”
Lena S. Tillman v. The United States, 320 F.2d 396 (Ct. Cl. 1963). “gainst a Russian national originally accruing in favor of a national of the United States with respect to which a judgment was entered in, or a warrant of attachment issued from, any court of the United States or of a State of the United States in favor of a national of the…”
Avramova v. United States, 354 F. Supp. 420 (S.D.N.Y. 1973). “- § 2201 declaring the Agreement and 22 U.S.C. § 1641b(4) to be unconstitutional on the grounds that plaintiffs and members of their class were deprived without due process of law of their property rights which vested when their claims were adjudicated by the Commission.”
Tillman v. United States, 162 Ct. Cl. 612 (Ct. Cl. 1963). “inst a Bussian national originally accruing in favor of a national of the United States with respect to which a judgment was entered in, or a warrant of attachment issued from, any court of the United States or of a State of the United States in favor of a national of the United…”
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.