Morris

Court of Claims

Morris

181 Ct. Cl. 1203, 1967 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 180

CourtUnited States Court of Claims

DecidedDecember 18, 1967

DocketNo. 418-64

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 181 Ct. Cl. 1203 (Morris) 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

Morris, 181 Ct. Cl. 1203, 1967 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 180 (cc 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

Civilian pay; reduction in force. — Plaintiff, a veteran preference eligible, sues to recover back pay lost when he was separated from his position in the Department of the Interior pursuant to a reduction in force action, plaintiff urging that the transfer was invalid and that his separation by reduction in force was improper. The case came before the court on the parties’ cross motions for summary judgment. Upon consideration thereof, together with the briefs and oral argument of counsel, the court concluded that there was no significant difference between this case and that reported with respect to a similarly situated co-worker of plaintiff, Paul E. Sweeney, in Sweeney v. United States, 177 Ct. Cl. 651 (1966) and that on the authority of that decision and Colbath v. United States, 169 Ct. Cl. 414, 341 F. 2d 626 (1965), plaintiff was not entitled to recover, and on December 18, 1967, the petition was dismissed. Plaintiff’s motion for rehearing was denied by the court on February 16, 1968.

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

Civilian pay; reduction in force. — Plaintiff, a veteran preference eligible, sues to recover back pay lost when he was separated from his position in the Department of the Interior pursuant to a reduction in force action, plaintiff urging that the transfer was invalid and that his separation by reduction in force was improper. The case came before the court on the parties’ cross motions for summary judgment. Upon consideration thereof, together with the briefs and oral argument of counsel, the court concluded that there was no significant difference between this case and that reported with respect to a similarly situated co-worker of plaintiff, Paul E. Sweeney, in Sweeney v. United States, 177 Ct. Cl. 651 (1966) and that on the authority of that decision and Colbath v. United States, 169 Ct. Cl. 414, 341 F. 2d 626 (1965), plaintiff was not entitled to recover, and on December 18, 1967, the petition was dismissed. Plaintiff’s motion for rehearing was denied by the court on February 16, 1968.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

181 Ct. Cl. 1203, 1967 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 180, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morris-cc-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack