Legal Opinion

Tato v. United States

United States Court of Claims

Decided November 7, 1956No. 139-54PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWhitaker, Judge

Plaintiff, after his retirement in 1948, was employed in a civilian capacity by the Commissioned Officers Mess, United States Naval Air Station, San Diego, California, at a salary in excess of $8,000 per annum. The Comptroller General held that he came within the provisions of section 212 of the Economy Act of June 30,1932 (47 Stat. 382,406), which prohibited a “commissioned officer” from drawing retired pay so long as he held a civilian office under the United States Government the compensation of which exceeded $3,000 per annum.

At the time in question plaintiff was a commissioned warrant…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Tanner v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1954
  2. Hilton v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1943

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Amsden v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1959
  2. Atkins v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1958
  3. Seastrom v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1959
  4. Norman Morris Rains v. The United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1963
  5. Walter Zur-Linden v. The United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1962

1 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