Legal Opinion

Bowman v. United States

United States Court of Claims

Decided January 14, 1959No. 108-58PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMaddeN, Judge

The United States refused to pay the plaintiff Warthen1 retired pay which accrued to him because of length of service as a Reserve officer, the refusal being based upon section 212 of the Economy Act of 1932, 5 U. S. C. 59a. During the time for which the plaintiff seeks to recover retired pay, he was employed in a civilian capacity by the Government, and his civilian salary exceeded $3,000 per annum. If section 212 applied to him, it made him ineligible to draw the retired pay while he held the civilian position.

The plaintiff says that section 212 does not apply to his situation because of…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Tanner v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1954
  2. Sarles v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1958

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Warthen v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1962
  2. Gradall v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1962
  3. Warthen v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1962

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

Powered by the Exa API