Gray v. United States

136 Ct. Cl. 312, 1956 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 119, 1956 WL 8337
CourtUnited States Court of Claims
DecidedJuly 12, 1956
DocketNo. 488-54
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 136 Ct. Cl. 312 (Gray 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
Gray v. United States, 136 Ct. Cl. 312, 1956 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 119, 1956 WL 8337 (cc 1956).

Opinions

Littleton, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court:

The commissioner of the court, William E. Day, heard this case on the merits and has submitted a report of the facts and recommendation for conclusion of law, in which he recommends that pursuant to Eule 49 (c), the plaintiff’s [313]*313petition be dismissed on authority of Tabbutt, et al. v. United States, 121 C. Cls. 495.

Upon consideration of the case the court adopts and approves the findings and recommendation of the commissioner as the findings and conclusion of the court.

The facts in this case are to be distinguished from the facts in Schaible, et al. v. United States, 135 C. Cls. 890. The record of facts in this case brings it within the decisions of this court in the above-cited case of Tabbutt, et al., supra, and the cases of Post and Gaines, hereinafter cited.

The record shows that the alleged overtime for which plaintiff claims pay after he left the service, for the period January 1, 1949, to June 15, 1954, was neither officially approved orally nor in writing, nor will the record warrant a finding that plaintiff was induced or directed by his superiors directly or indirectly by writing or otherwise to work overtime. He was simply appointed to a job as a narcotics agent in which he says he worked overtime.

The plaintiff’s petition is therefore dismissed on the authority of Tabbutt, et al. v. United States, supra; Post v. United States, 121 C. Cls. 94, and Gaines v. United States, 132 C. Cls. 408.

It is so ordered.

LaramORe, Judge; Whitaker, Judge; and Jokes, Chief Judge, concur.

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

Related

Lesko v. United States
Federal Circuit, 2025
Mercier v. United States
786 F.3d 971 (Federal Circuit, 2015)
Carlsen v. United States
521 F.3d 1371 (Federal Circuit, 2008)
Bishop v. United States
72 Fed. Cl. 766 (Federal Claims, 2006)
Doe v. United States
54 Fed. Cl. 404 (Federal Claims, 2002)
Bilello v. United States
174 Ct. Cl. 1253 (Court of Claims, 1966)
Bantom v. United States
165 Ct. Cl. 312 (Court of Claims, 1964)
Gaines v. United States
158 Ct. Cl. 497 (Court of Claims, 1962)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
136 Ct. Cl. 312, 1956 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 119, 1956 WL 8337, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gray-v-united-states-cc-1956.