Randolph v. United States

Fifth Circuit

Randolph v. United States

158 F.2d 787, 1946 U.S. App. LEXIS 2462

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·Decided November 15, 1946·No. No. 11761·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant suing under the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C.A. § 41(20), to récover disability retirement pay, claimed to be due him as a Lieutenant Colonel in the Army under Section 456, Title 10 U.S.C.A., was met by a motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction.

The District Judge sustained the motion, and, on the authority of United States v. Beaman, 5 Cir., 61 F.2d 493, Morgan v. United States, 5 Cir., 115 F.2d 426, and Smith v. United States, 4 Cir., 57 F.2d 998, dismissed the cause.

Appellant is here claiming that Dismuke v. United States, 297 U.S. 167, 56 S.Ct. 400, 80 L.Ed. 561, is to the contrary. We do not think so. The judgment is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant suing under the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C.A. § 41(20), to récover disability retirement pay, claimed to be due him as a Lieutenant Colonel in the Army under Section 456, Title 10 U.S.C.A., was met by a motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction.

The District Judge sustained the motion, and, on the authority of United States v. Beaman, 5 Cir., 61 F.2d 493, Morgan v. United States, 5 Cir., 115 F.2d 426, and Smith v. United States, 4 Cir., 57 F.2d 998, dismissed the cause.

Appellant is here claiming that Dismuke v. United States, 297 U.S. 167, 56 S.Ct. 400, 80 L.Ed. 561, is to the contrary. We do not think so. The judgment is affirmed.

Randolph v. United States, 158 F.2d 787, 1946 U.S. App. LEXIS 2462 (5th Cir. 1946).

Pincite

158 F.2d 787 (Randolph v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related