Anderson

Court of Claims

Anderson

202 Ct. Cl. 1120, 1973 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 133, 1973 WL 5040

CourtUnited States Court of Claims

DecidedSeptember 28, 1973

DocketNo. 151-68

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 202 Ct. Cl. 1120 (Anderson) 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

Anderson, 202 Ct. Cl. 1120, 1973 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 133, 1973 WL 5040 (cc 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

Civilian pay; overtime pay. — This case came before the court on defendant’s motion filed July 11, 1973 for reconsideration or for alteration of the court’s judgment dated May 11,1973 and reported at 201 Ct. Cl. 660. Upon consideration of the motion, together with the opposition thereto, without oral argument, on September 28, 1973 the court denied the motion. The court emphasizes that this case turns on the wording and contest of the particular Veterans Administration regulation which was in effect during the period involved. Both Trial Judge Wood’s opinion and the court’s per rnrirnn addition make that clear. The court was not construing “regular overtime work” or “irregular or occasional overtime work” as those terms may appear in other regulations or legislation, or in other contexts.

Judges Skelton and Bennett would allow defendant’s motion for reconsideration or for alteration of judgment.

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

Civilian pay; overtime pay. — This case came before the court on defendant’s motion filed July 11, 1973 for reconsideration or for alteration of the court’s judgment dated May 11,1973 and reported at 201 Ct. Cl. 660. Upon consideration of the motion, together with the opposition thereto, without oral argument, on September 28, 1973 the court denied the motion. The court emphasizes that this case turns on the wording and contest of the particular Veterans Administration regulation which was in effect during the period involved. Both Trial Judge Wood’s opinion and the court’s per rnrirnn addition make that clear. The court was not construing “regular overtime work” or “irregular or occasional overtime work” as those terms may appear in other regulations or legislation, or in other contexts.

Judges Skelton and Bennett would allow defendant’s motion for reconsideration or for alteration of judgment.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

202 Ct. Cl. 1120, 1973 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 133, 1973 WL 5040, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anderson-cc-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack