Legal Opinion · Dissent

Mary Laws Steelman, of the Estate of Charlie Steelman v. The United States

United States Court of Claims

Decided June 7, 1963No. 24-60Published

1DissentWhitaker, Judge

I am concerned about the decision in this ease.

In section 7 of the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act of 1916, Congress said that an employee drawing compensation under the Act “ * * * shall not receive from the United States any salary, pay, or remuneration whatsoever except in return for services actually performed, and except pensions * * *.” The majority opinion says that a man may receive compensation for services being performed at the same time as he is receiving compensation, and he may receive a pension at the same time he is receiving compensation, but it says that he cannot…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Lemly v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1948
  2. Mulholland v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1957

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

Powered by the Exa API