Legal Opinion

Adair v. United States

United States Court of Claims

Decided May 6, 1981No. Nos. 541-76, 286-78, 461-78, 87-79C and 139-79CPublishedCited by 51 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtKunzig, Judge

In these five consolidated pay cases,1 plaintiffs are some 220 Public Health Service (PHS) physicians who claim *346entitlement to so-called "variable incentive pay” (VIP) under 37 U.S.C. §313 (1976). The Government, relying on United States v. Testan (Testan)2 contends that we lack jurisdiction to entertain this suit because of plaintiffs’ failure to show any substantive right to receive money presently due. Plaintiffs rejoin by labeling the Government’s contention as a "rather extravagant reading of Testan.” Arguing that the regulations which excluded them from receiving VIP are inconsistent…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. United States v. TestanSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  2. United States v. KingSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
  3. Eastport Steamship Corporation v. The United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1967
  4. Sanders v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1979
  5. Skinner v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1979

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

3Cited by51 opinions

  1. Victoria M. Voge v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1988
  2. John Doe v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1996
  3. Donald D. Huston v. The United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1992
  4. Connolly v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1982
  5. Roberts v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2014

46 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