Legal Opinion

Holland v. United States

United States Court of Claims

Decided March 6, 1939No. 43503PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBooth, Chief Justice

The only question in this case is whether plaintiff, who, by reason of an airplane accident, was physically unfit for duty as an airplane pilot, but who was assigned to duty as an observer and while on such duty participated regularly and frequently in aerial flights, is entitled to the 50% additional flying pay provided by Sec. 13a of the act of June 4, 1920, 41 Stat. 759,768, as amended by the act of July 2,1926, 44 Stat. 780, 781.

Plaintiff was rated as a pilot and regularly took part in aerial flights until injured in an airplane accident in 1928, and was paid the additional 50% up to July…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. United States v. LuskeySupreme Court of the United States · 1923
  2. Clark v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1925
  3. Bradshaw v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1926
  4. Emmons v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1927
  5. Brown v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1930

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Lewicki v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1974
  2. Schofield v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1942

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

Powered by the Exa API