Meidl v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
BRADEN, Judge.
1. RELEVANT FACTS.1
On September 8, 1993, Nathan T. Meidl (“Plaintiff’) enlisted in the Army Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (“Army ROTC”) program while attending the University of Wisconsin. AR 209. On April 9,1996, Plaintiff entered active duty in the United States Army- AR 10, 194-204. On April 30, 2000, he was appointed as a commissioned officer in the Active Guard Reserve (“AGR”) program. AR 167.
Later in 2000, while serving in the AGR, Plaintiff began to experience bilateral foot pain that was aggravated by prolonged standing and running. AR 10.…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Lujan v. Defenders of WildlifeSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Warth v. SeldinSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2000
- United States v. TestanSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- FW/PBS, Inc. v. City of DallasSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Ward v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2017
- Nathan T. Meidl v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2013
- Towne v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2012
- Nathan T. Meidl v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2014
- Warner v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2012
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.