38 U.S.C. § 2022
Coordination of outreach services for veterans at risk of homelessness
A prior section 2022 was renumbered section 4302 of this title and subsequently omitted in the general amendment of chapter 43 of this title by Pub. L. 103–353, § 2(a),
2008—Subsec. (f)(2)(C). Pub. L. 110–387 struck out “demonstration” before “program”.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 84
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1975–2024 · leading case: Samuel C. Hanna, Cross-Appellee v. American Motors Corporation, Cross-Appellant
Samuel C. Hanna, Cross-Appellee v. American Motors Corporation, Cross-Appellant (1984)
“The Government appealed and this court ruled that: “But for the pre-induction physicals, plaintiff would have collected his salary until February 28, 1971, and would have been reinstated upon return from active duty with a September 14, 1970, date with all attendant rights under…”
Laurice J. Ezratty v. The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (1981)
“For an example and discussion of a federal statute expressly authorizing a suit in federal district court against a state for reimbursement for lost wages and benefits, see 38 U.S.C. § 2022 of the Veterans’ Reemployment Rights Act, and Peel v.”
Monroe v. Standard Oil Co. (1981)
“" [4] The Department of Justice represents the petitioner pursuant to 38 U. S. C. § 2022 . [5] Section 2021 (b) (3) provides: "Any person who holds a position described in clause (A) or (B) of subsection (a) of this section shall not be denied retention in employment or any…”
John W. Farries v. Stanadyne/chicago Division (1987)
“The appellant argues that Congress, in amending 38 U.S.C. § 2022 7 in 1974 to make clear that actions under the Vietnam Era Veterans’ Readjustment Assistance Act were equitable in nature and that state statutes of limitations are not to be applied to such claims, intended that…”
John H. Stevens v. Tennessee Valley Authority (1983)
“That statute is 38 U.S.C. § 2022 . Congress first established veterans’ reemployment rights in the Selective Training & Service Act of 1940, Pub.”
Gulf States Paper Corporation v. Eloise H. Ingram (1987)
“On appeal, Gulf States not only supports the trial court’s finding of general federal question jurisdiction, it also argues that 38 U.S.C. § 2022 of the Veterans’ Reemployment Rights Act provides subject matter jurisdiction for this case.”
Earl J. Reopell v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts (1991)
“The relevant section of the VRRA, as codified in 38 U.S.C. § 2022 , reads: If any employer, who is a private employer or a State or political subdivision thereof .”
Polos v. United States (1980)
“§ 459(d) (1970) (current version at 38 U.S.C. § 2022 (1976)). This statute provides in part that "[u]pon application to the United States attorney or comparable official * * *, by any person claiming to be entitled to” reemployment benefits with a private employer, 12 "such…”
Alabama Power Co. v. Davis (1977)
“§ 459 (d), now codified at 38 U. S. C. § 2022 (1970 ed., Supp. V). 4 Compare Jackson v.”
Daniel L. Jennings v. Illinois Office of Education (1979)
“§ 2022 specifically authorizes the district courts to require an eligible veteran’s employer to reinstate him and to compensate him “for any loss of wages or benefits suffered by reason of such employer’s unlawful action” (note 1 supra): Since the same provision includes a…”
Coffy v. Republic Steel Corp. (1980)
“Coffy, represented by the Department of Justice pursuant to 38 U. S. C. § 2022 , filed this action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, alleging that Republic violated his statutory re-employment rights by refusing to consider his military…”
Peel v. Florida Department of Transportation (1977)
“The jurisdiction of this court is conferred by 38 U.S.C. § 2022 , entitled “Enforcement procedures.”
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.