Legal Opinion

Almanza v. United States

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Decided August 21, 2019No. 2018-1803PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Reyna, Circuit Judge.

Manuel Almanza represents a group of United States Border Patrol Agents who seek compensation from the United States for activities they claim were performed during "hours of work" while attending a voluntary canine instructor course. The United States Court of Federal Claims granted summary judgment in favor of the government and denied Almanza's claims. Because the court correctly determined that Almanza is not entitled to compensation as a matter of law, we affirm.

BACKGROUND .

I. Border Patrol Agents, Canine Handlers, and Canine Instructors

Border Patrol Agents…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
  2. Tennessee Coal, Iron & Railroad v. Muscoda Local No. 123Supreme Court of the United States · 1944
  3. Sage Products, Inc. v. Devon Industries, Inc., Defendant/cross-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1997
  4. Rezi P. Forshey, Claimant-Appellant v. Anthony J. Principi, Secretary of Veterans AffairsCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2002
  5. Cross Medical Products, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2005

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. 1 v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2021
  2. DAVIS v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2026
  3. Doe No. 1 v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2022
  4. NALTNER v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2024
  5. Oxy USA, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2022

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

Powered by the Exa API