Amell v. United States

175 Ct. Cl. 898, 170 Ct. Cl. 898
CourtUnited States Court of Claims
DecidedMay 31, 1966
DocketNo. 387-64; No. 423-64; No. 269-64; No. 338-64
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 175 Ct. Cl. 898 (Amell v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Court of Claims primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Amell v. United States, 175 Ct. Cl. 898, 170 Ct. Cl. 898 (cc 1966).

Opinion

On writ of certiorari to review orders of the United States Court of Claims granting defendant’s motions to transfer to the appropriate United States district courts the above cases seeking overtime pay for work performed by plaintiffs who were seamen on United States owned vessels, the Supreme Court granted certiorari (382 U.S. 810), and on May 16, 1966, reversed the action ordered by the Court of Claims on April 12, 1965 (170 Ct. Cl. 898). The Supreme Court held, 384 U.S. 158, that Congress has traditionally treated employees such as the petitioners herein as public servants subject to the Tucker Act rather than as seamen whose claims are subject to the Suits in Admiralty Act and stated that while the Suits in Admiralty Act was enacted after the Tucker Act and would normally repeal provisions of the Tucker Act which were in conflict, the jurisdiction of the Court of Claims over suits such as these has remained unchallenged until at least 1960 and in amending both statutes in that year Congress did not indicate any intention to deprive Government-employed seamen of their traditional Tucker Act rights, an important aspect of such rights being the six-year limitations period applicable to the filing of suits under that act as contrasted with the two-year period applicable under the Suits in Admiralty Act. The cases were remanded to the Court of Claims for further proceedings.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Kalka
189 Ct. Cl. 562 (Court of Claims, 1969)
Rice
176 Ct. Cl. 1379 (Court of Claims, 1966)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
175 Ct. Cl. 898, 170 Ct. Cl. 898, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/amell-v-united-states-cc-1966.