Legal Opinion

Tanner v. United States

United States Court of Claims

Decided November 2, 1954No. 543-53, 38-54, 39-54PublishedCited by 21 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MADDEN, Judge.

Each of these three cases involves the question whether an Army Reserve or Air Force Reserve officer on the Retired List, who is otherwise entitled to receive retired pay, may receive such pay if he holds civilian employment with the Government for which he is paid $3,000 or more per year.

Section 212 of the Economy Act of June 30, 1932, 47 Stat. 406, as amended in 1940, 54 Stat. 761, 5 U.S.C.A. § 59a, provides in material part as follows:

“(a) After the date of the enactment of this Act, no person holding a civilian office or position, appointive or elective, under the United…

2Cited by21 opinions

  1. John L. Hostinsky v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1961
  2. Amsden v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1959
  3. Belle C. Watman, as of the Last Will and Testament of Morris Watman v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1961
  4. Broyderick v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1957
  5. Tato v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1956

16 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