James D. Morrow v. The United States

I believe the court has misconstrued the Remaley case. The majority opinion quotes from the opinion in 122 F.Supp. 679, 129 Ct.Cl. 159. It will be noted that the matter should be referred to a trial commissioner for the purpose of determining whether, notwithstanding the language quoted, the plaintiff was on active duty service.

When it was finally disposed of by an opinion — 139 F.Supp. 956, 134 Ct.Cl. 874—we held that the plaintiff should recover. We held that plaintiff was on extended active duty in fact, notwithstanding the recital “active duty for training” in the order.

In some respects…