Robertson v. United States

94 Ct. Cl. 61, 1941 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 52, 1941 WL 4618
CourtUnited States Court of Claims
DecidedJune 2, 1941
DocketNo. 43697
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 94 Ct. Cl. 61 (Robertson 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
Robertson v. United States, 94 Ct. Cl. 61, 1941 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 52, 1941 WL 4618 (cc 1941).

Opinion

Whaley, Chief Justice,

delivered the opinion of the court:

This case comes before the court under an act retiring the plaintiff in the grade of “lieutenant commander on the retired list of the Navy with pay and allowances of the fourth pay period, as now prescribed under existing laws, and with credit for all service which he is now entitled to count in the computation of his pay.”

Plaintiff relies on the cases of Sweeney v. United States, 82 C. Cls. 640, and Ralston v. United States, 91 C. Cls. 91, certiorari denied October 21, 1940. (311 U. S. 687.) These cases are not apposite. We are governed entirely by the terms of the special act and it is distinctly stated therein that he is to receive only the pay and allowances of the fourth pay period, as now prescribed by law. This means that he is to receive pay and allowances of a retired officer and be given credit for all service he is now entitled to count in the computation of his pay. That would include credit for his [64]*64length of service but it would not include, and was not intended to include, allowances of an officer on the active list which would include rental and subsistence allowances.

Plaintiff had been retired as a lieutenant, having previously been a lieutenant, junior grade, and the special act of Congress was intended to cover the advancement to lieutenant commander and give him such allowances that a retired officer was getting in that grade. Plaintiff is now receiving the pay and benefits of that grade.

The petition is dismissed. It is so ordered.

JoNes, Judge; and LittletoN, Judge, concur. Madden, Judge, concurs in the result. Whitakee, Judge, took no part in the decision of this case.

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

Related

Byrd v. United States
103 Ct. Cl. 285 (Court of Claims, 1945)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
94 Ct. Cl. 61, 1941 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 52, 1941 WL 4618, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robertson-v-united-states-cc-1941.