Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Hiram Colon v. County of Shawnee, State of Kansas

Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

Decided March 31, 1987No. 85-1091Published

1Concurrence

McWILLIAMS, Circuit Judge,

specially concurring:

I concur in the result reached by the majority, but am not in accord with their *597reasoning. I believe that the Magistrate’s reasoning is correct.

When Colon entered on active military duty he had 20 days remaining on the so-called “lay-off” list. During the ensuing 20 days neither Colon nor anyone else on the lay-off list was recalled to work. That ends the matter as far as I’m concerned. If during that 20-day period Colon had been recalled to work, and unable to respond because of military service, then the Vietnam Era Veterans’ Readjustment…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Fishgold v. Sullivan Drydock & Repair Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1946
  2. John A. Kelly v. Ford Instrument Co., Division of Sperry Rand CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1962
  3. Hall v. Chicago & Eastern Illinois RailroadDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 1964

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

Powered by the Exa API