TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Abbey Madolyn Cook v. Harvey v. Higley, or His Successor, Administrator of Veterans' Administration

Abbey Madolyn COOK, Appellant, v. Harvey v. HIGLEY, or His Successor, Administrator of Veterans’ Administration, Appellee

Abbey Madolyn Cook v. Harvey v. Higley, or His Successor, Adm'r of Veterans' Admin., 238 F.2d 41 (D.C. Cir. 1956)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
November 8, 1956
Docket
No. 13418
Judges
Bazelon, Danaher, Bastian
Citations
238 F.2d 4199 U.S. App. D.C. 1801956 U.S. App. LEXIS 3985

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM.

Appellant instituted this proceeding in the District Court to obtain a judicial review of a decision by the Administrator of Veterans’ Affairs denying compensation or pension to her as the alleged widow of a World War I veteran. Appellee moved to dismiss or, alternatively, for summary judgment, on the grounds that the District Court lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter of the cause and that the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief might be granted. The motion was granted and the cause dismissed with prejudice, the court relying on 38 U.S.C.A. § 705 and 38 U.S.C.A. § lla-2.

1

These sections withdraw from the jurisdiction of the courts every final decision of the Administrator of Veterans’ Affairs in regard to claims for benefits or payments such as are asserted by appellant. See Longernecker v. Higley, 1955, 97 U.S.App.D.C. 144 , 229 F.2d 27 , and Hahn v. Gray, 1953, 92 U.S.App.D.C. 188 , 203 F.2d 625 .

The judgment of the District Court is Affirmed.

1

. 38 U.S.C.A. § 705 :

“Conclusiveness of decisions and regulations under this chapter; review prohibited.

All decisions rendered by the Administrator of Veterans’ Affairs under the provisions of sections 701, 702, 703, 704, 705, 706, 707-710, 712-715, 717, 718, 720 and 721 of this title or the regulations issued pursuant thereto shall be final and conclusive on all questions of law and fact, and no other official or court of the United States shall have jurisdiction to review by mandamus or otherwise any such decision.”

38 U.S.C.A. § lla-2:

“Finality of Administrator’s decisions on questions concerning claims for benefits or payments.

Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, except as provided in sections 445 and 817 of this title [exceptions relating to insurance], the decisions of the Administrator of Veterans’ Affairs on any question of law or fact concerning a claim for benefits or payments under any Act administered by the Veterans’ Administration shall be final and conclusive and no other official or any court of the United States shall have power or jurisdiction to review any such decisions.”

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1959: 11963: 119592026peak 1959 · 1

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
Hahn v. Gray, Jr., 203 F.2d 625 (D.C. Cir. 1953) 28
Raymond W. Longernecker v. Harvey v. Higley, Adm'r, Veterans Admin., 229 F.2d 27 (D.C. Cir. 1955) 7

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list