United States Ex Rel. Farmer v. Thompson

Fourth Circuit

United States Ex Rel. Farmer v. Thompson

203 F.2d 947, 1953 U.S. App. LEXIS 3448

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedMay 1, 1953

Docket6578

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 203 F.2d 947 (United States Ex Rel. Farmer v. Thompson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States Ex Rel. Farmer v. Thompson, 203 F.2d 947, 1953 U.S. App. LEXIS 3448 (4th Cir. 1953).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order dismissing an action instituted in the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia against the Administrator of Veterans Affairs at Pittsburgh, Pa., and the members of the Board of Veterans Appeals, who maintain their official residence and headquarters in the District of Columbia. Appellant sought to review denial of an increase of pension or disability compensation, asked on the ground that he was in need of the regular aid and attendance of another person, as provided for by Public Law 356, 82nd Congress, 66 Stat. 90, Servicemen’s Readjustment Act of 1944, Veterans’ Regulation No. 1(f), pt. 3, 38 U.S.C.A. following section 745. The action was properly dismissed. The court, by express statutory provision, was without jurisdiction to review the decision of the Administrator of Veterans Affairs. 38 U.S.C.A. § 705; Lynch v. United States, 292 U.S. 571, 587, 54 S.Ct. 840, 78 L.Ed. 1434; Barnett v. Hines, 70 App.D.C. 217, 105 F.2d 96, certiorari denied 308 U.S. 573, 60 S.Ct. 88, 84 L.Ed. 480; Van Horne v. Hines, 74 App. D.C. 214, 122 F.2d 207, certiorari denied 314 U.S. 689, 62 S.Ct. 360, 86 L.Ed. 552. Since the action could not be maintained in any jurisdiction, it is not necessary to consider the point that the defendants could be sued only in the district or districts of their residence. Cf. Blackmar v. Guerre, 342 U.S. 512, 72 S.Ct. 410, 96 L.Ed. 534; Berlinsky v. Woods, 4 Cir., 178 F.2d 265, 267.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order dismissing an action instituted in the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia against the Administrator of Veterans Affairs at Pittsburgh, Pa., and the members of the Board of Veterans Appeals, who maintain their official residence and headquarters in the District of Columbia. Appellant sought to review denial of an increase of pension or disability compensation, asked on the ground that he was in need of the regular aid and attendance of another person, as provided for by Public Law 356, 82nd Congress, 66 Stat. 90, Servicemen’s Readjustment Act of 1944, Veterans’ Regulation No. 1(f), pt. 3, 38 U.S.C.A. following section 745. The action was properly dismissed. The court, by express statutory provision, was without jurisdiction to review the decision of the Administrator of Veterans Affairs. 38 U.S.C.A. § 705; Lynch v. United States, 292 U.S. 571, 587, 54 S.Ct. 840, 78 L.Ed. 1434; Barnett v. Hines, 70 App.D.C. 217, 105 F.2d 96, certiorari denied 308 U.S. 573, 60 S.Ct. 88, 84 L.Ed. 480; Van Horne v. Hines, 74 App. D.C. 214, 122 F.2d 207, certiorari denied 314 U.S. 689, 62 S.Ct. 360, 86 L.Ed. 552. Since the action could not be maintained in any jurisdiction, it is not necessary to consider the point that the defendants could be sued only in the district or districts of their residence. Cf. Blackmar v. Guerre, 342 U.S. 512, 72 S.Ct. 410, 96 L.Ed. 534; Berlinsky v. Woods, 4 Cir., 178 F.2d 265, 267.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

203 F.2d 947, 1953 U.S. App. LEXIS 3448, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-ex-rel-farmer-v-thompson-ca4-1953.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack