Pratt

Court of Claims

Pratt

566 F.2d 1192, 215 Ct. Cl. 987, 1977 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 101, 1977 WL 25916

CourtUnited States Court of Claims

DecidedNovember 25, 1977

DocketNo. 66-77

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 566 F.2d 1192 (Pratt) 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

Pratt, 566 F.2d 1192, 215 Ct. Cl. 987, 1977 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 101, 1977 WL 25916 (cc 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

"Plaintiff, a former infantryman, served in the Army from 1939 until 1959 when he was retired for longevity under the provisions of 10 U.S.C. § 3911 (1970). He now claims that, unknown to the Army, he was then suffering from disabled feet and should have been retired for disability. We have the case on cross-motions for summary judgment.

"Plaintiff was offered, but declined, an opportunity to undergo disability examination at the time of his retire[988]*988ment. His final service physical examination revealed no problem with his feet. Plaintiff has not shown us that he ever complained of any problem with his feet until 1974, although it may first have been raised in 1971. He did not file suit until 1977. Plaintiffs case is clearly barred by the doctrine of laches. See Devine v. United States, 208 Ct. Cl. 998 (1975).

"Therefore, upon consideration of the motions and the written and oral arguments of the parties,

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

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

"Plaintiff, a former infantryman, served in the Army from 1939 until 1959 when he was retired for longevity under the provisions of 10 U.S.C. § 3911 (1970). He now claims that, unknown to the Army, he was then suffering from disabled feet and should have been retired for disability. We have the case on cross-motions for summary judgment.

"Plaintiff was offered, but declined, an opportunity to undergo disability examination at the time of his retire[988]*988ment. His final service physical examination revealed no problem with his feet. Plaintiff has not shown us that he ever complained of any problem with his feet until 1974, although it may first have been raised in 1971. He did not file suit until 1977. Plaintiffs case is clearly barred by the doctrine of laches. See Devine v. United States, 208 Ct. Cl. 998 (1975).

"Therefore, upon consideration of the motions and the written and oral arguments of the parties,

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

566 F.2d 1192, 215 Ct. Cl. 987, 1977 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 101, 1977 WL 25916, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pratt-cc-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack