38 U.S.C. § 601

SHORT TITLE; DEFINITIONS.

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 38 CasesGoogle Scholar

“(a)Short Title.—This title may be cited as the ‘Fairly Assessing Service-related Toxic Exposure Residuals Presumptions Act of 2022’ or the ‘FASTER Presumption Act of 2022’.“(b)Definitions.—In this title, the terms ‘active military, naval, air, or space service’, ‘toxic exposure’, and ‘toxic-exposed veteran’ have the meanings given those terms in section 101 of title 38, United States Code, as amended by section 102.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 8 cases, 1938–1991 · leading case: Evelyn Elisabeth Kirkhuff v. Robert P. Nimmo, Adm'r, Vets. Affairs, 683 F.2d 544 (D.C. Cir. 1982).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Evelyn Elisabeth Kirkhuff v. Robert P. Nimmo, Adm'r, Vets. Affairs, 683 F.2d 544 (D.C. Cir. 1982). · cites it 2× “” 38 U.S.C. § 601 (1) (1976). 5 Appellee contends, and the District *549 Court held, that the V.”

Isobel Moore v. Donald E. Johnson, 582 F.2d 1228 (9th Cir. 1978). “We reach this conclusion by recognizing that it is not unreasonable to regard the complaint, despite its lack of precision, to allege that the failure of 38 U.S.C. §§ 601— 628, 4001-4009, and the applicable regulations thereunder, to provide for a pre-termination or…”

Melson v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 334 (Vet. App. 1991). “As to a “VA facility”, this term is defined by 38 U.S.C. § 601 (4) (1988) as: (A) facilities over which the [Secretary] has direct jurisdiction; (B) Government facilities for which the [Secretary] contracts; and (C) public or private facilities at which the [Secretary] provides…”

Kirkhuff v. Cleland, 516 F. Supp. 351 (D.D.C. 1981). · cites it 5× “48 (e) violates her due process rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution by creating an irrebuttable presumption that women veterans experiencing labor and delivery without complications are not “disabled” for the purposes of hospital care benefits eligibility under…”

Hartmann v. United States, 615 F. Supp. 446 (E.D.N.Y 1985). “They allege violation of equal protection under the Fifth Amendment, and violation of the Ninth Amendment and the Veterans’ Benefit Act, 38 U.S.C. §§ 601 and 5001. Plaintiffs ground jurisdiction in 28 U.”

Lowry v. Woodring, 101 F.2d 673 (D.C. Cir. 1938). · cites it 2× “…McCarl, 291 U.S. 442 , 54 S.Ct. 465 , 78 L.Ed. 901 ; Hines v. U. S. ex rel. Cavanagh, 59 App.D.C. 207 , 39 F.2d 517 . 38 U.S.C. § 601 , 38 U.S.C.A. § 601 .”

Admin. Determination of Eligibility for Vets.' Beneficiary Travel Reimbursement (OLC 1982). “See 38 U.S.C. § 601 (1970). Second, the 1976 Act amended § 111 to permit the Administrator to require the beneficiary to submit an annual declaration and certification of his inability to defray travel expenses in order to ensure that reimbursement for travel costs was not paid…”

United States v. Woodworth, 36 F. Supp. 645 (D. Mass. 1941). “§ 601 , in part, is as follows: “The amount of adjusted service credit shall be computed by allowing the following sums for each day of active service, in excess of sixty days, in the military or naval forces of the United States * * The main question is then whether or not…”

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.