Ronald J. Cornetta v. The United States of America and John Lehman, Secretary of the Navy, Defendant

837 F.2d 473, 1988 WL 4734
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
DecidedJanuary 27, 1988
Docket87-1121
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 837 F.2d 473 (Ronald J. Cornetta v. The United States of America and John Lehman, Secretary of the Navy, Defendant) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Ronald J. Cornetta v. The United States of America and John Lehman, Secretary of the Navy, Defendant, 837 F.2d 473, 1988 WL 4734 (Fed. Cir. 1988).

Opinion

ORDER

The Suggestion for Rehearing in Banc filed by Ronald J. Cornetta, is accepted.

On or before March 30, 1988, the parties shall file briefs treating of these questions:

When a claim is filed within the statutory period of limitations, and the government asserts the equitable defense of laches, should the presumption of prejudice rising from delay be eliminated, and earlier holdings recognizing that presumption, see, e.g., Pepper v. United States, 794 F.2d 1571, 1575 (Fed.Cir.1986), Deering v. United States, 223 Ct.Cl. 342, 620 F.2d 242, 246 (1980), Brundage v. United States, 205 Cl.Ct. 502, 504 F.2d 1382, 1386 (1974), be to that extent overruled?
Can the government establish prejudice when the amount of a claim for back pay is fixed, and claimant’s delay could not therefore have increased the government’s burden? See, e.g., Chappelle v. United States, 168 Ct.Cl. 362, 366 (1964); Simon v. United States, 113 Ct.Cl. 182, 200 (1949).
Should potential for recovery of back pay for the time it would take a claimant to establish entitlement constitute prejudice to the government?
Should potential receipt of retired pay by a military officer constitute prejudice to the government, having in mind that “military retired pay is reduced compensation for reduced current services,” McCarty v. McCarty, 453 U.S. 210, 222, 101 S.Ct. 2728, 2736, 69 L.Ed.2d 589 (1981)?

The parties will in due course be notified of the date for oral argument before the court in banc.

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

Related

Fern v. United States
15 Cl. Ct. 580 (Court of Claims, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
837 F.2d 473, 1988 WL 4734, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ronald-j-cornetta-v-the-united-states-of-america-and-john-lehman-cafc-1988.