38 U.S.C. § 321
Office of Survivors Assistance
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12
cases, 1959–1995 · leading case: Stencel Aero Eng'g Corp. v. United States, 431 U.S. 666 (1977).
Stencel Aero Eng'g Corp. v. United States, 431 U.S. 666 (1977). “[2] Pursuant *668 to the Veterans' Benefits Act, 38 U. S. C. § 321 et seq., made applicable to National Guardsmen by 32 U.”
Constancia A. Vda De Daylo v. Adm'r of Vets.' Affairs, 501 F.2d 811 (D.C. Cir. 1974). “Daylo under 38 U.S.C. § 321 . 5 In 1951, however, the Administration notified her that benefits would cease unless she could prove that she had “not remarried” — a statutory condition of eligibility.”
Daniel Edward Bynum v. Fmc Corp., 770 F.2d 556 (5th Cir. 1985). “Finally, the Court noted that the government had already adequately provided for injured servicemen by enacting the Veterans’ Benefits Act, 38 U.S.C. §§ 321 et seq., which establishes a no-fault military compensation scheme.”
Ellis Gaspard & Opal Gaspard v. United States of Am., Dennis Ronald Sheehan & Nellie Katherine Sheehan, Husband & Wife v. United States, 713 F.2d 1097 (5th Cir. 1983). “The “distinctly federal” character of the armed forces, the existence of a “generous” compensation scheme under the Veterans Benefits Act, 38 U.S.C. § 321 et seq., and the “effects of the maintenance of such suits on military discipline” led to the conclusion that FTCA suits may…”
Gliceria Ramos Vda De Sinlao v. United States of Am. & Sumner G. Whittier, Adm'r of Vets. Affairs, 271 F.2d 846 (D.C. Cir. 1959). “38 U.S.C. § 321 . The Administrator found the appellant to be such a widow, allowed her claim for compensation, and for some time issued monthly checks therefor.”
De Rodulfa v. United States, 461 F.2d 1240 (D.C. Cir. 1972). “Our consequent lack of jurisdiction renders both unnecessary and improper any consideration of other objections appellants advance against allowance of the fees.”
Milai v. Tradewind Indus., Inc., 556 F. Supp. 36 (E.D. Mich. 1982). “In that case, the court held that an on-duty serviceman who is injured due to the government’s negligence is limited to recovery under the “no-fault” scheme of the Veterans’ Benefits Act, 38 U.S.C. § 321 , et seq., and may not sue the government under the Federal Tort Claims Act.”
Ionian Glow Marine, Inc. v. United States, 670 F.2d 462 (4th Cir. 1982). “The issue of what damages were provable was left for the district court’s determination. As part of its provable damages, appellant claims $700,000 it paid in settlement of claims brought by the three injured servicemen.”
Mrs. Leonarda F. Vda De Sibonga v. Adm'r of Vets. Affairs, 458 F.2d 789 (D.C. Cir. 1972). “§ 101 (3), claimed eligibility pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 321 , to receive dependency and indemnity compensation as provided in 38 U.”
In Re the Complaint of Ionian Glow Marine, Inc., 510 F. Supp. 196 (E.D. Va. 1981). “2 Donham received a lifetime pension pursuant to the Veterans Benefits Act, 38 U.S.C. § 321 et seq. and filed suit claiming damages against the United States and Stencel alleging that the system malfunctioned as a result of the negligence of the defendants.”
de Guzman v. Gleason, 234 F. Supp. 145 (D.D.C. 1964). “This is an action for a mandatory injunction against the Administrator of Veterans Affairs to recover benefits under Title 38 U.S.C.A. § 321 . The action is brought by the widow of a former Philippine Scout in the United States Army.”
Bielema v. Biester, 880 F. Supp. 555 (N.D. Ill. 1995). “However, in this ease the plaintiff may have administrative remedies for his injuries through the Veterans’ Benefits Act, 38 U.S.C. § 321 . CONCLUSION For the above-stated reasons, this Court hereby grants the United States’ Motion To Substitute as- a Defendant and hereby grants…”
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.