Legal Opinion

Sarles v. United States

United States Court of Claims

Decided March 5, 1958No. 353-56PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtLittleton, Judge

Plaintiff sues to recover Army longevity retirement pay as a colonel under Title III1 of the Act of June 29, 1948, *71162 Stat. 1081, 1087, from June 29, 1948. The Army has refused to pay plaintiff the retirement pay for which he has admittedly qualified by age and length of service under the terms of the 1948 Act, on the ground that such payment is prohibited under the dual compensation prohibition provisions of section 212 of the Economy Act of June 30, 1932, 47 Stat. 382, 406', as amended, 54 Stat. 760,761, 69 Stat. 497, 498 (P. L. 239, section 2)>, for the stated reason that during the period…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Tanner v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1954
  2. Seagrave v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1955
  3. Stevanus v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1957

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Belle C. Watman, as of the Last Will and Testament of Morris Watman v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1961
  2. Bowman v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1959
  3. Belle C. Watman, as of the Last Will and Testament of Morris Watman v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1961
  4. Gradall v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1962

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

Powered by the Exa API