Conley

566 F.2d 1189, 214 Ct. Cl. 829, 1977 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 203
CourtUnited States Court of Claims
DecidedJuly 8, 1977
DocketNo. 540-76
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 566 F.2d 1189 (Conley) 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
Conley, 566 F.2d 1189, 214 Ct. Cl. 829, 1977 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 203 (cc 1977).

Opinion

"This civilian pay case comes before the court on cross motions for summary judgment. There is no material issue of fact as to the timeliness of plaintiffs claim or the controlling nature of prior court decisions with relation to this same case.

"Plaintiff, Lena Rosa K. Conley, filed her petition in this court on December 21, 1976, alleging two causes of action. Plaintiffs first cause of action, involving an allegedly fraudulent check issued to her in 1973 because of her medical disability in 1966,1 is barred by the statute of limitations. 28 U.S.C. § 2501 (1970). The Board of Appeals and Review (BAR) rendered its final decision denying plaintiffs appeal on January 27, 1967; consequently, plaintiffs cause of action arose, at the latest, on that date. Since plaintiffs petition was filed almost ten years after her cause of action arose, that claim is beyond the jurisdiction of this court.

"Plaintiffs second cause of action, revolving around her employment with the Naval Supply Center, Norfolk, Virginia, was the subject of plaintiffs former litigation in this court, which culminated in an order dismissing plaintiffs petition. Conley v. United States, 212 Ct. Cl. 561 [830]*830(1976). That order controls the disposition of the present claim as a matter of law; accordingly, plaintiffs second cause of action must be dismissed under the principle of res adjudicata. Therefore,

"it is ordered that plaintiffs cross motion for summary judgment be and is hereby denied, that defendant’s motion for summary judgment be and is hereby granted and that plaintiffs petition be and is hereby dismissed.”

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

Related

Ross
652 F.2d 71 (Court of Claims, 1981)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
566 F.2d 1189, 214 Ct. Cl. 829, 1977 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 203, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/conley-cc-1977.