Legal Opinion

Kalasanckas v. Hines

District Court, District of Columbia

Decided February 4, 1930No. 5045PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justice.

This appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia denying appellant a writ of mandamus to compel the Director of the United States Veterans’ Bureau to award him compensation for total- disabilities alleged to result from the “permanent loss of the use of both feet,” as provided in paragraph (3) of section 202, of the World War Veterans’ Act of 1924, 43 Stat. 618 (38 USCA § 473).

It appears that there was issued to appellant a policy of war risk insurance in the amount of $10,000, payable upon his death or total permanent disability.…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Silberschein v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1924

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Hines v. United States ex rel. LivingstonDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 1930

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API