Canonica v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims
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
- Conley v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Haines v. KernerSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Scheuer v. RhodesSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Massachusetts Board of Retirement v. MurgiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Vance v. BradleySupreme Court of the United States · 1979
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Milas v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 1999
- Flowers v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2008
- Gallucci v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 1998
- Philip L. Anderson v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2013
- Favreau v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2002
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.