38 U.S.C. § 1801
Repealed. Pub. L. 106–419, title IV, § 401(c)(1), Nov. 1, 2000, 114 Stat. 1860]
[repealed]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 26
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1960–2021 · leading case: Gatter v. Cleland, 512 F. Supp. 207 (E.D. Pa. 1981).
Gatter v. Cleland, 512 F. Supp. 207 (E.D. Pa. 1981). “This class action suit filed pursuant to the Veteran’s Benefit Act of 1958 ( 38 U.S.C. § 1801 et seq.) is before this Court on cross-motions for summary judgment.”
New York Guardian Mortgagee Corp. v. Cleland, 473 F. Supp. 422 (S.D.N.Y. 1979). “38 U.S.C. § 1801 et seq. Under the Mortgage Backed Securities program, discussed at some length in our recent disposition in this same action of cross motions by Guardian and GNMA, see New York Guardian Mortgagee Corp.”
W. Sec. Co., a Subsidiary of Universal Mortg. Corp. v. Edward J. Derwinski, Sec'y of Vets. Affairs, 937 F.2d 1276 (7th Cir. 1991). “2d at 1043 , and whether the courts do this by creating new principles of law or by borrowing existing principles of state law, the resulting body of law is federal for purposes of jurisdiction.”
Rank v. Nimmo, 677 F.2d 692 (9th Cir. 1982). “NORRIS, Circuit Judge: In 1971, appellees John and Dolores Rank bought a home financed through a mortgage guaranteed by the Veterans Administration (VA) pursuant to the VA Home Loan Guarantee Program, 38 U.S.C. § 1801 et seq. In 1976, the mortgage was foreclosed.”
Rank v. Cleland, 460 F. Supp. 920 (C.D. Cal. 1978). “John Rank is a veteran of the United States Army, and therefore is entitled to the benefits of the Veterans’ Housing program established under the Veterans Benefits Act of 1958, 38 U.S.C. §§ 1801 et seq. 2. The defendants in this action are Max Cleland, Administrator of Veterans…”
Adm'r of Vets.' Affairs v. Sparkman (In Re Sparkman), 9 B.R. 359 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 1981). “See 38 U.S.C. § 1801 et seq. and 38 C.F.R. § 36.”
Johnson v. Johnson, 192 Cal. App. 3d 551 (Cal. Ct. App. 1987). “We reject the appellant’s contention that relief should be denied because of a misuse of the GI loan provisions of the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act of 1944 ( 38 U.S.C. § 1801 et seq.; hereinafter, Act).”
In Re Dye, 108 B.R. 135 (Bankr. W.D. Tex. 1989). “Wayne Mortgage Company in 1983 pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 1801 et seq. 8. The Veterans’ Administration was neither listed upon the schedules in the Chapter 7 Case or the Chapter 13 Case apparently through mistake or inadvertence.”
Gatter v. Cleland, 87 F.R.D. 66 (E.D. Pa. 1980). “The loan guarantee or insurance is provided pursuant to the Veterans’ Home Loan Guaranty and Insurance Program, see 38 U.S.C. § 1801 et seq., and its avowed purpose is to encourage homeownership among veterans by reducing the risk of loss to private lenders.”
Cent. Mortg. Co. v. Galbraith (In Re Galbraith), 19 B.R. 563 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 1982). “Section 522(f)(1) provides: (f) Notwithstanding any waiver of exemptions, the debtor may avoid the fixing of a lien on an interest of the debtor in property to the extent that such lien impairs an exemption to which the debtor would have been entitled under subsection (b) of…”
Gatter v. Nimmo, 672 F.2d 343 (3rd Cir. 1982). “38 U.S.C. § 1801 , et seq. . 38 U.S.C. § 1816 (a).”
Satchel v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 258 (Vet. App. 1991). “See 38 U.S.C. §§ 1801 , 1802 (1988) (term “veteran” includes surviving spouse of veteran who died from a service-connected disability).”
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.