Legal Opinion
Puglisi v. United States
United States Court of Claims
Decided October 19, 1977No. Nos. 275-76 through 281-76, 386-76 through 388-76PublishedCited by 24 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtDavis, Judge
Plaintiffs are retired regular officers of various components of the uniformed services who hold civilian positions with the federal government. As retired regular officers they are permitted to receive their full civilian pay but, pursuant to the Dual Compensation Act of 1964, now 5 U.S.C. § 5532(b) (1970), their retirement pay is substantially reduced.1 Retired reserve officers, on the other hand, *89are exempted from the Dual Compensation Act and therefore allowed to receive their full civilian pay and full retirement pay simultaneously. 5 U.S.C. § 5534. In this suit for the amount of…
2Cases cited31 opinions
- Dandridge v. WilliamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
- McGowan v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1961
- Williamson v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1955
- Bolling v. SharpeSupreme Court of the United States · 1954
- Massachusetts Board of Retirement v. MurgiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by24 opinions
- McCarty v. McCartySupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- Eastern Diversified Properties, Inc. v. Montgomery CountyCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1990
- Ex Parte BursonTexas Supreme Court · 1981
- Christian v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2017
- United States v. MarylandDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 1979
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.