Hermann R. Habicht v. The United States

Court of Claims

Hermann R. Habicht v. The United States

303 F.2d 946, 154 Ct. Cl. 852

CourtUnited States Court of Claims

DecidedJune 29, 1962

Docket102-55

StatusPublished

This text of 303 F.2d 946 (Hermann R. Habicht 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

Hermann R. Habicht v. The United States, 303 F.2d 946, 154 Ct. Cl. 852 (cc 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

WHITAKER, Judge.

In the opinion handed down on June 7, 1961, we held that plaintiff was entitled to accrued annual leave during the period of his suspension, in addition to the annual leave he had accrued as of January I, 1952, which was the maximum number of hours he could accrue as of that date had he not been suspended. We had so held in Hynning v. United States, 141 Ct.Cl. 486. Since that time, however, the court has decided Zeiger v. United States, 1961, Ct.Cl., 295 F.2d 915, in which we overruled Hynning and other cases, and held that an employee could not accrue annual leave during the period of his suspension in excess of the maximum annual leave he could accumulate up to the date of his suspension. We *947 have followed Zeiger in a number of subsequent cases. We think it was correctly decided; hence, defendant’s motion to alter our former judgment is allowed and that part of our former judgment holding that plaintiff was entitled to recover accrued annual leave during the period of his suspension, will be vacated and set aside; otherwise the opinion of June 7, 1961, in all other respects will stand, the petition will be dismissed and an appropriate conclusion of law will be entered.

Plaintiff’s motion for relief from judgment and for a re-hearing is denied.

It is so ordered.

JONES, Chief Judge, and LARA-MORE and DURFEE, Judges, concur.

DAVIS, Judge, took no part in the consideration and decision of this case.

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

WHITAKER, Judge.

In the opinion handed down on June 7, 1961, we held that plaintiff was entitled to accrued annual leave during the period of his suspension, in addition to the annual leave he had accrued as of January I, 1952, which was the maximum number of hours he could accrue as of that date had he not been suspended. We had so held in Hynning v. United States, 141 Ct.Cl. 486. Since that time, however, the court has decided Zeiger v. United States, 1961, Ct.Cl., 295 F.2d 915, in which we overruled Hynning and other cases, and held that an employee could not accrue annual leave during the period of his suspension in excess of the maximum annual leave he could accumulate up to the date of his suspension. We *947 have followed Zeiger in a number of subsequent cases. We think it was correctly decided; hence, defendant’s motion to alter our former judgment is allowed and that part of our former judgment holding that plaintiff was entitled to recover accrued annual leave during the period of his suspension, will be vacated and set aside; otherwise the opinion of June 7, 1961, in all other respects will stand, the petition will be dismissed and an appropriate conclusion of law will be entered.

Plaintiff’s motion for relief from judgment and for a re-hearing is denied.

It is so ordered.

JONES, Chief Judge, and LARA-MORE and DURFEE, Judges, concur.

DAVIS, Judge, took no part in the consideration and decision of this case.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

303 F.2d 946, 154 Ct. Cl. 852, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hermann-r-habicht-v-the-united-states-cc-1962.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack