Legal Opinion

Rush

United States Court of Claims

Decided March 15, 1965No. 317-63Published

1Opinion of the Court

Oi/oilian fay; demotion. — Plaintiff, a veteran preference eligible, claiming that he was wrongfully demoted from a temporary position as leadingman rigger to rigger, seeks to recover back pay. Upon consideration of the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment, together with briefs and oral argument, the court concluded that plaintiff’s designation was a temporary promotion, was known by him to be such, that the Navy Department had followed applicable procedures under Section 14 of the Veterans’ Preference Act, and that plaintiff had failed to show procedural error or that the action of…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Love v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1951
  2. Eclov v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1957
  3. Hofflund v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1961

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

Powered by the Exa API