Eric L. Hicks v. Veterans Administration

Eighth Circuit

Eric L. Hicks v. Veterans Administration

688 F.2d 58, 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 25770

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 10, 1982

Docket82-1884

StatusPublished

This text of 688 F.2d 58 (Eric L. Hicks v. Veterans Administration) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Eric L. Hicks v. Veterans Administration, 688 F.2d 58, 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 25770 (8th Cir. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Eric L. Hicks filed this action in federal district court alleging that the Veterans Administration had improperly denied him educational assistance benefits pursuant to 38 U.S.C. §§ 1682(g)(1) and 1780(a)(6). The district court treated the appellant’s pro se complaint as one challenging those statutes on the ground that they violate the equal protection guarantees arising from the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. The parties filed a stipulation of fact and each moved for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court granted the defendant’s summary judgment motion, holding that the classifications created by 38 U.S.C. §§ 1682(g)(1) and 1780(a)(6) are rationally related to the statute’s purpose of providing educational assistance to veterans who would otherwise be unable to pursue education.

Hicks appeals to this Court and asks that counsel be appointed to represent him. After a careful review of the record, we deny the appellant’s motion for appointment of counsel and affirm the order of the district court for the reasons set forth in that court’s opinion. See 8th Cir. R. 12.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Eric L. Hicks filed this action in federal district court alleging that the Veterans Administration had improperly denied him educational assistance benefits pursuant to 38 U.S.C. §§ 1682(g)(1) and 1780(a)(6). The district court treated the appellant’s pro se complaint as one challenging those statutes on the ground that they violate the equal protection guarantees arising from the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. The parties filed a stipulation of fact and each moved for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court granted the defendant’s summary judgment motion, holding that the classifications created by 38 U.S.C. §§ 1682(g)(1) and 1780(a)(6) are rationally related to the statute’s purpose of providing educational assistance to veterans who would otherwise be unable to pursue education.

Hicks appeals to this Court and asks that counsel be appointed to represent him. After a careful review of the record, we deny the appellant’s motion for appointment of counsel and affirm the order of the district court for the reasons set forth in that court’s opinion. See 8th Cir. R. 12.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

688 F.2d 58, 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 25770, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eric-l-hicks-v-veterans-administration-ca8-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack