TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Stephens v. United States

Stephens v. United States, 85 F.2d 570 (6th Cir. 1936)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
March 4, 1936
Docket
No. 7229
Citations
85 F.2d 5701936 U.S. App. LEXIS 4178

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

PER CURIAM.

It appearing that this suit was brought by the administrator of the estate of Thomas E. Stephens, who served in the United States Army from December 18, 1914, to July 25, 1917, to recover automatic insurance for the benefit of his brothers and sisters under section 401 of the amended War Risk Insurance Act passed October 6, 1917 ( 40 Stat. 409 ), as again amended by section 19 of the Act of June 25, 1918 ( 40 Stat. 609 , 614-, 615), but that the statute does not provide for the payment of such automatic insurance benefits to brothers and sisters of a deceased soldier, and it further appearing that such benefits were in the nature of gratuities and that the statute allowing them was repealed by section 17 of title 1 of the Act of March 20, 1933, commonly called the Economy Act, ch. 3, 48 Stat. 11 (U.S.C. tit. 38, §717 [ 38 U.S.C.A. §717 ]),

It is therefore ordered and adjudged that the order of the District Court sustaining the demurrer to appellant’s petition be, and the same is, affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

1937: 21972: 119372026peak 1937 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. United States v. Jackson89 F.2d 572 (4th Cir. 1937)
  2. United States v. Oliver86 F.2d 1018 (6th Cir. 1937)
  3. Creme Manufacturing Co. v. United States348 F. Supp. 270 (E.D. Tex. 1972)

Most recent

  1. Creme Manufacturing Co. v. United States348 F. Supp. 270 (E.D. Tex. 1972)
  2. United States v. Jackson89 F.2d 572 (4th Cir. 1937)
  3. United States v. Oliver86 F.2d 1018 (6th Cir. 1937)

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 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

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