Cases by Issue - Veteran

Brown, Secretary Of Veterans Affairs v. Gardner

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:15:25 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

93-1128

Petitioner

Brown, Secretary Of Veterans Affairs

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Gardner

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

513 U.S. 115 (1994)

Argued

Monday, October 31, 1994

Decided

Monday, December 12, 1994

Advocates

Joseph M. Hannon, Jr. (on behalf of the Respondent)

Edward C. DuMont (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

Fred P. Gardner was treated in a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) facility. Afterwards, he experienced weakness in his left leg, allegedly a result of the surgery. He claimed disability benefits under 38 U.S.C. 1151, which requires the VA to pay disability compensation if an injury occurs as a result of or is worsened by treatment. The VA and the Board of Veterans Appeals denied the claim, stating that the statute, as interpreted by VA regulation 38 CFR 3.358 (c)(3), requires that the claimant prove that the injury arose due to negligence or error by the VA facility. The Court of Veterans Appeals reversed the decision on the ground that the fault-or-accident requirement in 38 CFR 3.358 was not warranted by Section 1151. The decision was affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Question

Is Department of Veterans Affairs regulation 38 CFR 3.358 (c)(3), which restricts disability compensation to injuries caused by accidents or negligence during surgery, consistent with the controlling statute, 38 U.S.C. 1151?

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Gardner, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 38 U.S.C. 1151

No. In a unanimous decision authored by Justice David Souter, the Court affirmed the lower court's decision and ruled for Gardner. The Court held that Section 1151 contains no language requiring proof of fault, and it rejected the Government's claims that the requirement was implicit in the language of the statute. The Court acknowledged the 60-year longevity of the regulation and the post-1934 legislative silence on the issue, but neither concern could overcome the plain language of Section 1151.

Traynor v. Turnage

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:25:32 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-622

Petitioner

Traynor

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Turnage

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 86-737

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1987-1988)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

485 U.S. 535 (1988)

Argued

Monday, December 7, 1987

Decided

Wednesday, April 20, 1988

Advocates

Keith A. Teel (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Jerrold J. Ganzfried (on behalf of the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 4 votes for Turnage, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 38 U.S.C. 211

None

Monroe v. Standard Oil Co.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:28:35 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-298

Petitioner

Monroe

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Standard Oil Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

452 U.S. 549 (1981)

Argued

Wednesday, March 4, 1981

Decided

Wednesday, June 17, 1981

Advocates

Paul S. McAuliffe (on behalf of the Respondent)

Alan I. Horowitz (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Standard Oil Co., 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 38 U.S.C. 2021

None

Coffy v. Republic Steel Corp.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:10:50 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-81

Petitioner

Coffy

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Republic Steel Corp.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

447 U.S. 191 (1980)

Argued

Wednesday, February 27, 1980

Decided

Tuesday, June 10, 1980

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Coffy, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 38 U.S.C. 2021

None

Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:33:53 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-5729

Petitioner

Oliphant

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Suquamish Indian Tribe

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

435 U.S. 191 (1978)

Argued

Monday, January 9, 1978

Decided

Monday, March 6, 1978

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Oliphant, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Alabama Power Co. v. Davis

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:10:33 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-451

Petitioner

Alabama Power Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Davis

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

431 U.S. 581 (1977)

Argued

April 25-26, 1977

Decided

Monday, June 6, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Davis, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Selective Service, Military Selective Service, or Universal Military Service and Training Acts

None

Foster v. Dravo Corp.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:33:15 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-1773

Petitioner

Foster

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Dravo Corp.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

420 U.S. 92 (1975)

Argued

Monday, January 20, 1975

Decided

Tuesday, February 18, 1975

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Dravo Corp., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Selective Service, Military Selective Service, or Universal Military Service and Training Acts

None

Hernandez v. Veterans' Administration

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:34:42 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-700

Petitioner

Hernandez

Respondent

Veterans' Administration

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

415 U.S. 391 (1974)

Argued

Tuesday, December 11, 1973

Decided

Monday, March 4, 1974

Advocates

Jack R. Petranker (pro hac vice, argued the cause for the petitioners)

Lawrence L. Curtice (argued the cause for the petitioners)

Gerald P. Norton (argued the cause for the respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Hernandez, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 38 U.S.C. 211

None

Johnson v. Robison

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:34:34 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-1297

Petitioner

Robison

Respondent

Johnson

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

415 U.S. 361 (1974)

Argued

Tuesday, December 11, 1973

Decided

Monday, March 4, 1974

Advocates

Gerald P. Norton (argued the cause for the appellants)

Michael David Rosenberg (argued the cause for the appellee)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Johnson, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 38 U.S.C. 211

None

Accardi v. Pennsylvania R. Co.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:42:44 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

280

Petitioner

Accardi

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Pennsylvania R. Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

383 U.S. 225 (1966)

Argued

Thursday, January 20, 1966

Decided

Monday, February 28, 1966

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Accardi, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 54 Stat. 890

None

Tilton v. Missouri P. R. Co.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:37:25 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Tilton

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Missouri P. R. Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

376 U.S. 169 (1964)

Argued

Tuesday, January 7, 1964

Decided

Monday, February 17, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Tilton, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Selective Service, Military Selective Service, or Universal Military Service and Training Acts

None

Brooks v. Missouri P. R. Co.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:37:21 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Brooks

Respondent

Missouri P. R. Co.

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

376 U.S. 182 (1964)

Argued

January 7-8, 1964

Decided

Monday, February 17, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Brooks, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Selective Service, Military Selective Service, or Universal Military Service and Training Acts

None

Porter v. Aetna Casualty Co.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:41:36 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

604

Petitioner

Porter

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Aetna Casualty Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962)

Opinion

370 U.S. 159 (1962)

Argued

Wednesday, April 25, 1962

Decided

Monday, June 11, 1962

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Porter, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 38 U.S.C. 3101

None

United States v. Shimer

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:37:56 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

392

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Shimer

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

367 U.S. 374 (1961)

Argued

Thursday, April 27, 1961

Decided

Monday, June 12, 1961

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for United States, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 58 Stat. 284

None

United States v. Oregon

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:37:49 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

329

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Oregon

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

366 U.S. 643 (1961)

Argued

Tuesday, April 25, 1961

Decided

Monday, May 29, 1961

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for United States, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 38 U.S.C. 17

None

Bell v. United States

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:38:16 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Bell

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

366 U.S. 393 (1961)

Argued

Wednesday, January 11, 1961

Decided

Monday, May 22, 1961

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Bell, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 37 U.S.C. 242

None

Mckinney v. Missouri-K.-T. R. Co.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:29:45 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Mckinney

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Missouri-K.-T. R. Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1957-1958)

Decided By

Warren Court (1957-1958)

Opinion

357 U.S. 265 (1958)

Argued

Monday, January 27, 1958

Decided

Monday, June 23, 1958

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Missouri-K.-T. R. Co., 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Selective Service, Military Selective Service, or Universal Military Service and Training Acts

None

United States v. Plesha

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:28:46 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Plesha

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1956-1957)

Decided By

Warren Court (1956-1957)

Opinion

352 U.S. 202 (1957)

Argued

Thursday, November 8, 1956

Decided

Monday, January 14, 1957

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Plesha, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 50 U.S.C. 540

None

Toth v. Quarles

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:30:44 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Toth

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Quarles

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1954-1955)

Decided By

Warren Court (1955-1956)

Opinion

350 U.S. 11 (1955)

Argued

Tuesday, February 8, 1955

Reargued:

Thursday, October 13, 1955

Decided

Monday, November 7, 1955

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Toth, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 11: War Power

None