Ralph Russell v. The United States
United States Court of Claims
1DissentDavis, Judge
I dissent from the holding that the parties had not agreed to be bound by the Vitarelli decision on so-called “lost leave."2 To me it is clear from the correspondence set forth in the findings (i) that, no later than the early months of 1961, plaintiff and defendant had informally joined in an agreement that Vitarelli — decided on June 8, 1960— would govern all aspects of the present case except for the deduction of the life insurance premiums, and (ii) that a stipulated judgment would be entered on that basis. In September 1960, over three months after Vitarelli was handed down, defendant’s…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Hennessy v. BaconSupreme Court of the United States · 1890
- Moses-Ecco Company, Inc. v. Roscoe-Ajax Corporation, Roscoe-Ajax Corporation v. Charles DetwilerCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1963
- Backus v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1932
- Mansfield v. HodgdonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1888
- Blanton v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1933
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.