Teichner v. United States

Court of Claims

Teichner v. United States

116 Ct. Cl. 869, 1949 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 12, 1949 WL 4920

CourtUnited States Court of Claims

DecidedDecember 5, 1949

DocketNo. 48577; No. 48629

StatusPublished

This text of 116 Ct. Cl. 869 (Teichner 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

Teichner v. United States, 116 Ct. Cl. 869, 1949 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 12, 1949 WL 4920 (cc 1949).

Pincite

Opinion

[873]*873The court decided that the plaintiffs were entitled to re-

cover in an opinion

per curiam

as follows:

These cases present the same legal questions which were before this court in the cases of Thomas C. Gibney v. The [874]*874United States No. 48572; Joseph M. Ahearn v. The United States, No. 48610; and Donald M. Taylor v. The United States, No. 48611, all decided June 6, 1949 [114 C. Cls. 38, 65, 59]. The plaintiffs are, therefore, entitled to recover for the reasons given in those cases. Entry of judgments will be suspended to await the filing of a stipulation showing the amounts to which the plaintiffs are entitled.

In accordance with the above opinion, on July 10, 1950, judgments were entered as follows:

No. 48577, Stephen J. Teichner_$265.07

No. 48629, Paul G. Maki-$880. 24

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

[873]*873The court decided that the plaintiffs were entitled to re-

cover in an opinion

per curiam

as follows:

These cases present the same legal questions which were before this court in the cases of Thomas C. Gibney v. The [874]*874United States No. 48572; Joseph M. Ahearn v. The United States, No. 48610; and Donald M. Taylor v. The United States, No. 48611, all decided June 6, 1949 [114 C. Cls. 38, 65, 59]. The plaintiffs are, therefore, entitled to recover for the reasons given in those cases. Entry of judgments will be suspended to await the filing of a stipulation showing the amounts to which the plaintiffs are entitled.

In accordance with the above opinion, on July 10, 1950, judgments were entered as follows:

No. 48577, Stephen J. Teichner_$265.07

No. 48629, Paul G. Maki-$880. 24

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

116 Ct. Cl. 869, 1949 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 12, 1949 WL 4920, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/teichner-v-united-states-cc-1949.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack