Legal Opinion
Andrews v. United States
United States Court of Claims
Decided August 21, 1984No. Nos. 640-82C, 153-84C, 242-82C, 366-83C, 370-82C and 512-82CPublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
NETTESHEIM, Judge.
BACKGROUND
By order dated May 16, 1984, the court allowed each plaintiff in these consolidated *205cases to submit a supplemental brief distinguishing his case from Foster v. United States, 3 Cl.Ct. 440 (1983), aff'd, 733 F.2d 88 (Fed.Cir.1984), in order to avoid the laches bar imposed in that case.
Like Foster, Heimerdinger, and Olson in the referenced ease, plaintiffs are all former United States Air Force Reserve officers who waited more than six years to challenge their release from active service as a result of passovers for promotion by improperly constituted…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Barmag Barmer Maschinenfabrik Ag v. Murata MacHinery Ltd., and Murata of America, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1984
- Brundage v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1974
- Goewey v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1979
- Gruca v. United States Steel Corp.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1974
- Deering v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1980
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Tennessee Valley Authority v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1987
- Park v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1986
- Yerxa v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1986
- Birdwell v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1987
- Vereline v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1984
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.