Trial

Court of Claims

Trial

194 Ct. Cl. 1023, 1971 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 131, 1971 WL 4124

CourtUnited States Court of Claims

DecidedMarch 5, 1971

DocketNo. 374-70

StatusPublished

This text of 194 Ct. Cl. 1023 (Trial) 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

Trial, 194 Ct. Cl. 1023, 1971 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 131, 1971 WL 4124 (cc 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

— Plaintiff, a former Army officer, received a longevity retirement on October 31, 1964. He seeks disability retirement pay as of 1964 claiming he was physically unfit for duty. A Physical Evaluation Board found plaintiff fit for duty on September 29,1964, the Physical Keview Council on October 26, 1964 approved the Board’s findings, and on October 27, 1964, the Secretary of the Army also approved. [1024]*1024This case comes before the court on defendant’s motion to dismiss the petition. Upon consideration thereof, the time for filing of opposition by plaintiff having expired with no opposition having been filed, without oral argument, the court concluded that plaintiff’s petition is barred by the statute of limitations 28 U.S.C. § 2501. (See Friedman v. United States, 159 Ct. Cl. 1, 24, 310 F. 2d 381, 395-96 (1962), cert. denied sub nom. Lipp, 373 U.S. 932 (1963); Miller v. United States, 175 Ct. Cl. 871, 361 F. 2d 245 (1966).) On March 5,1971 the court granted defendant’s motion and dismissed the petition.

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

— Plaintiff, a former Army officer, received a longevity retirement on October 31, 1964. He seeks disability retirement pay as of 1964 claiming he was physically unfit for duty. A Physical Evaluation Board found plaintiff fit for duty on September 29,1964, the Physical Keview Council on October 26, 1964 approved the Board’s findings, and on October 27, 1964, the Secretary of the Army also approved. [1024]*1024This case comes before the court on defendant’s motion to dismiss the petition. Upon consideration thereof, the time for filing of opposition by plaintiff having expired with no opposition having been filed, without oral argument, the court concluded that plaintiff’s petition is barred by the statute of limitations 28 U.S.C. § 2501. (See Friedman v. United States, 159 Ct. Cl. 1, 24, 310 F. 2d 381, 395-96 (1962), cert. denied sub nom. Lipp, 373 U.S. 932 (1963); Miller v. United States, 175 Ct. Cl. 871, 361 F. 2d 245 (1966).) On March 5,1971 the court granted defendant’s motion and dismissed the petition.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

194 Ct. Cl. 1023, 1971 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 131, 1971 WL 4124, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/trial-cc-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack