Legal Opinion

Bevelheimer v. United States

United States Court of Claims

Decided February 29, 1984No. 201-77PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION ON DEFENDANT’S PARTIAL MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

TIDWELL, Judge.

This is a civilian pay case which comes before the court on Defendant’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Plaintiffs were civilian general schedule employees of the Department of the Army at Picatinny *560Arsenal in Dover, New Jersey, between 1966 and 1977. Plaintiffs brought suit in our predecessor court, the United States Court of Claims, on April 14, 1977 seeking hazard pay differential (hazardous duty pay) pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 5545(d) for work performed under hazardous conditions at Picatinny Arsenal Defendant moved…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. United States v. SherwoodSupreme Court of the United States · 1941
  2. United States v. KingSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
  3. Holmberg v. ArmbrechtSupreme Court of the United States · 1946
  4. Costello v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1961
  5. South Corporation and Seal Fleet, Inc. v. The United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1982

16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. LaMear v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1986
  2. Jones v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1985
  3. Lark v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1989
  4. Doyle v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1990
  5. Dean v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1986

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API