Legal Opinion
Grooms v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims
Decided January 7, 2013No. 11-743CPublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION and ORDER
Block, Judge.
Before the court are consolidated “military pay” cases. Plaintiffs Richard Grooms, David Lamey, and Everett Sappenfield all served honorably in the military on active duty but were discharged due to physical disabilities incurred over the course of their service. Mr. Grooms filed his complaint against the United States Army (“Army”) on November 4, 2011, seeking active duty back-pay under 37 U.S.C. § 204, or, alternatively, disability retirement pay and benefits under 10 U.S.C. § 1201. Grooms v. United States, docket no. 11-743. On November 4, 2011, Mr. Lamey and…
2Cases cited34 opinions
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Consolidated Edison Co. v. National Labor Relations BoardSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better EnvironmentSupreme Court of the United States · 1998
- United States v. TestanSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Hatmaker v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2014
- O'Brien v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2015
- Angel v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2023
- McCadney v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2025
- Professional Performance Development Group, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2015
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.