Legal Opinion
Armitage v. United States
United States Court of Claims
Decided December 20, 1990No. Nos. 139-89C, 568-89C, 632-89C, 690-89C and 90-53CPublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
BRUGGINK, Judge.
Plaintiffs in these consolidated cases raise a number of issues with respect to various provisions of the Federal Employees Pay Act (“Title 5”). 5 U.S.C. § 5101 et seq. (1988). At issue is the quantum of “pay” to which they were and are entitled during alleged authorized leave from work under the “leave with pay” provisions of 5 U.S.C. §§ 6303, 6307, 6322, and 6323 (1988). Plaintiffs allege that they can be divided into four groups: (1) those who worked 24 hour shifts and who, when on authorized leave, were not paid for regularly-scheduled overtime hours; (2) those who…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Eastport Steamship Corporation v. The United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1967
- Lanehart v. HornerCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1987
- Agner v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1985
- Acton v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1990
3Cited by7 opinions
- Ewer v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2004
- Alan A. Abreu v. The United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1991
- Armitage v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1991
- Abreu v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1991
- Mark Acton and 579 Other Named v. The United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1991
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.