Legal Opinion
Michael E. Stuart v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims
Decided January 30, 2013No. 10-859CPublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a); Military Pay Act, 10 U.S.C. §§ 204, 206; Discharge from Active Duty; Medical Evaluation; Documentation of Medical Treatment During Active Duty; Department of the Army Personnel Policy Guidance ¶¶ 7-2, 7-8, and 7-12; Army Regulations 40-400, 40-501, 635-40 and 635-200; Remand; Army Board for Correction of Military Records; Medical Evaluation Board.
OPINION AND REMAND ORDER
WILLIAMS, Judge.
Plaintiff, Michael E. Stuart, claims that he was wrongfully discharged from active duty in the United States Army after he became disabled in the line of duty. Plaintiff seeks…
2Cases cited27 opinions
- Florida Power & Light Co. v. LorionSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Morton v. RuizSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Bannum, Inc. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2005
- Orloff v. WilloughbySupreme Court of the United States · 1953
- Service v. DullesSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Richard P. Watson v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2013
- Watson v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2014
- Stuart v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2015