Legal Opinion

Canonica v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims

Decided July 29, 1998No. 95-437 CPublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION and ORDER

TURNER, Judge.

Plaintiff, a retired member of the Air Force’s Selected Reserve,1 alleges that an Air Force mandatory, age-based retirement program applied to him is unlawful. This case stands on defendant’s motion filed November 6, 1995 to dismiss the ease for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and/or for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.2 We conclude that, on one ground or another, defendant’s motion must be granted with respect to each aspect of plaintiffs claim.

I

Effective as of January 1, 1989, the Air Force established by regulation a mandatory…

2Cases cited23 opinions

  1. Conley v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
  2. Haines v. KernerSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  3. Scheuer v. RhodesSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
  4. Massachusetts Board of Retirement v. MurgiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  5. Vance v. BradleySupreme Court of the United States · 1979

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

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Milas v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 1999
  2. Flowers v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2008
  3. Gallucci v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 1998
  4. Philip L. Anderson v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2013
  5. Favreau v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2002

11 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