Legal Opinion

Amsden v. United States

United States Court of Claims

Decided July 15, 1959No. 134-54PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMadden, Judge

The plaintiff, Mondeau, is plaintiff No. 19 in the above-entitled case. The word “plaintiff” as used hereinafter will apply only to him. He seeks to recover retired pay denied him by the erroneous application to him of section 212 of the Economy Act of 1932, as amended, 47 Stat. 406, 5 T7.S.C. (1952 ed.) § 59a. That Act forbade the payment, at the same time, of civilian Government pay, and military service retired pay, to retired officers, to the extent that the sum of the two kinds of pay exceeded $3,000. The plaintiff is on the retired list of the Navy as a chief warrant officer, he having…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Sanders v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1951
  2. Tanner v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1954
  3. Atkins v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1958
  4. Tato v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1956

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Furst v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1982
  2. Red Lake Band v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1979
  3. Clark v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1960
  4. Acton v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1990
  5. Robert Clark v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1960

8 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