Brundage

Court of Claims

Brundage

206 Ct. Cl. 823, 1975 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 29, 1975 WL 6603

CourtUnited States Court of Claims

DecidedJanuary 10, 1975

DocketNo. 442-72

StatusPublished

This text of 206 Ct. Cl. 823 (Brundage) 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

Brundage, 206 Ct. Cl. 823, 1975 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 29, 1975 WL 6603 (cc 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

Military pay; active duty fay claim. — On October 23, 1975 (205 Ct. Cl. 502, 504 F. 2d 1382, pet. for cert. filed April 2, 1975), the court held that plaintiff’s claim was barred by laches and dismissed the petition. By order dated January 10, 1975 plaintiff’s motion for suggestion for rehearing en banc and plaintiff’s motion for rehearing were denied. Also, on January 10, 1975 the court issued the following order:

“This case comes before the court on the motion of the Bar Association of the District of Columbia for leave to file a brief Amicus Curiae, for waiver of the provisions of Buie 151(b), for an extension of time to file the Amicus Curiae brief, and for leave to present oral argument. Upon consideration of the motion and defendant’s opposition thereto,

“it is hereby ordered that the motion is denied on the ground that it was filed too late in the proceedings in this case.”

(The Chief Judge and Judge Bennett would allow the motion.)

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

Military pay; active duty fay claim. — On October 23, 1975 (205 Ct. Cl. 502, 504 F. 2d 1382, pet. for cert. filed April 2, 1975), the court held that plaintiff’s claim was barred by laches and dismissed the petition. By order dated January 10, 1975 plaintiff’s motion for suggestion for rehearing en banc and plaintiff’s motion for rehearing were denied. Also, on January 10, 1975 the court issued the following order:

“This case comes before the court on the motion of the Bar Association of the District of Columbia for leave to file a brief Amicus Curiae, for waiver of the provisions of Buie 151(b), for an extension of time to file the Amicus Curiae brief, and for leave to present oral argument. Upon consideration of the motion and defendant’s opposition thereto,

“it is hereby ordered that the motion is denied on the ground that it was filed too late in the proceedings in this case.”

(The Chief Judge and Judge Bennett would allow the motion.)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

206 Ct. Cl. 823, 1975 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 29, 1975 WL 6603, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brundage-cc-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack