Legal Opinion

Hendricks v. United States

United States Court of Claims

Decided June 16, 1976No. 161-74; No. 163-74; No. 164-74PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the CourtKtjNzig, Judge

In these consolidated civilian pay cases, plaintiffs, married female employees of the Panama Canal Government or a Canal Zone office of a United States Government agency, claim they have been deprived by regulation of what is known as an overseas tropical differential allowance. Because the regulations correctly deny plaintiffs’ entitlement to the tropical differential and because we find no abuse of discretion, we hold for defendant.

Plaintiffs’ attack on the denial of the tropical differential •requires scrutiny of the statutory underpinnings of the Canal Zone Government and its wage and…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. United States v. TestanSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  2. Udall v. TallmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
  3. Mississippi Valley Barge Line Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1934
  4. Clarence BROWN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION Et Al., Defendants-AppelleesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1974
  5. Selman v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1974

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

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Adair v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1981

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API