Denis E. Cosby v. The United States

Court of Claims

Denis E. Cosby v. The United States

417 F.2d 1345, 189 Ct. Cl. 528, 1969 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 86

CourtUnited States Court of Claims

DecidedNovember 14, 1969

Docket88-67

StatusPublished

Cited by25 cases

This text of 417 F.2d 1345 (Denis E. Cosby v. The 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

Denis E. Cosby v. The United States, 417 F.2d 1345, 189 Ct. Cl. 528, 1969 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 86 (cc 1969).

Pincite

Opinions

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

This case was referred to Trial Commissioner Lloyd Fletcher with directions to make findings of fact and recommendation for conclusions of law under the order of reference and Rule 57(a) [since September 1, 1969, Rule 134(h)]. The commissioner has done so in an opinion and report filed on March 14, 1969. Exceptions to the commissioner’s findings of fact and recommended conclusion of law were filed by plaintiff and the case has been submitted to the court on oral argument of counsel and the briefs of the parties. Since the court agrees with the commissioner’s opinion, findings and recommended conclusion of law, as hereinafter set forth, it hereby [1346]*1346adopts the same as the basis for its judgment in this case.

* Therefore, plaintiff is not entitled to recover and the petition is dismissed.

OPINION OF COMMISSIONER

FLETCHER, Commissioner:

On March 11, 1968, the court entered an order which denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss the petition herein on the ground that the plaintiff was barred by the doctrine of laches. Thereupon, the case was remanded to the trial commissioner for trial on the factual issue of whether plaintiff acted under the duress ■ of Federal Aviation Agency (FAA) officials when he submitted a resignation from his position in that agency on November 28, 1961. A trial on that issue has been held.

Based upon a full review of the record developed at the trial, and for the reasons' set forth in the following detailed and ultimate findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is concluded that plaintiff has failed to sustain his burden of showing that, in submitting his resignation, he acted under the duress or coercion of his superiors. Therefore, plaintiff’s petition should be dismissed.

The concurring opinion of NICHOLS, Judge, follows the opinion of the trial commissioner -which has been adopted by the court.

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

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

This case was referred to Trial Commissioner Lloyd Fletcher with directions to make findings of fact and recommendation for conclusions of law under the order of reference and Rule 57(a) [since September 1, 1969, Rule 134(h)]. The commissioner has done so in an opinion and report filed on March 14, 1969. Exceptions to the commissioner’s findings of fact and recommended conclusion of law were filed by plaintiff and the case has been submitted to the court on oral argument of counsel and the briefs of the parties. Since the court agrees with the commissioner’s opinion, findings and recommended conclusion of law, as hereinafter set forth, it hereby [1346]*1346adopts the same as the basis for its judgment in this case.

* Therefore, plaintiff is not entitled to recover and the petition is dismissed.

OPINION OF COMMISSIONER

FLETCHER, Commissioner:

On March 11, 1968, the court entered an order which denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss the petition herein on the ground that the plaintiff was barred by the doctrine of laches. Thereupon, the case was remanded to the trial commissioner for trial on the factual issue of whether plaintiff acted under the duress ■ of Federal Aviation Agency (FAA) officials when he submitted a resignation from his position in that agency on November 28, 1961. A trial on that issue has been held.

Based upon a full review of the record developed at the trial, and for the reasons' set forth in the following detailed and ultimate findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is concluded that plaintiff has failed to sustain his burden of showing that, in submitting his resignation, he acted under the duress or coercion of his superiors. Therefore, plaintiff’s petition should be dismissed.

The concurring opinion of NICHOLS, Judge, follows the opinion of the trial commissioner -which has been adopted by the court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

417 F.2d 1345, 189 Ct. Cl. 528, 1969 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 86, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/denis-e-cosby-v-the-united-states-cc-1969.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack