Court of Claims, 1956

Dion v. United States

Court of Claims · Decided December 5, 1956

137 Ct. Cl. 166; 1956 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 203; 1956 WL 8304

Counsel

Mr. Ediward E. Dion pro se., Mr. Francis J. Robinson, with, whom was Mr. Assistant Attorney General George Ooohran Doub, for the defendant.

Cases that cite this one

19 later published cases cite this decision. The 18 that cite it most often are listed here.

Brice v. Secretary of the Department of Health & Human Services (United States Court of Federal Claims 1999)
Goetz v. Secretary of Health & Human Services (United States Court of Federal Claims 1999)
The Catawba Indian Tribe of South Carolina v. The United States (Fed. Cir. 1993)
Pipes v. United States (United States Court of Federal Claims 2017)
Jackson v. United States (Fed. Cir. 2005)
Cochran v. United States (Court of Claims 1990)
LaFont v. United States (Court of Claims 1989)
McDonnal v. United States (Court of Claims 1986)
Custer v. United States (Court of Claims 1980)
Braude v. United States (Court of Claims 1978)
Brundage v. United States (Court of Claims 1974)
Jerome S. Spevack v. The United States (Court of Claims 1968)
Albert H. Grisham v. The United States (Court of Claims 1968)
The Japanese War Notes Association of the Philippines, Inc. (Japwancap, Inc.) v. The United States (Court of Claims 1967)
Coughlin v. Ryder (District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania 1966)
J. F. Hodgkins Company (1), Kingman Marine Construction, Inc. (2), and Palmer & Parker Co. (3) v. The United States (Court of Claims 1963)
Aflague v. United States (Court of Claims 1962)
Bailey v. United States (Court of Claims 1959)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Opinion

per curiam:

The plaintiff alleges in his petition that he has had permanent civil service career status since 1929, but that during much of the time since that date he has been on furlough or has had only temporary employment, while positions which he could have filled were given to temporary employees. He says that he complained to the Civil Service Commission and to the heads of employing agencies of the Government and that they either did not respond, or their responses misled him to think that he had no rights.

The plaintiff says that in 1955 the Federal Bureau of Investigation investigated his records and that, as a result, he was on May 16, 1955, reinstated in permanent civil service status and was appointed as a Marine Corps Inspector (Footwear) at the Marine Corps Clothing Depot at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

The plaintiff says that, as a result of the refusal to recognize his civil service status, his career has been ruined and *167lie has lost 19 years of Federal employment, seniority rights, promotions, rights in retirement funds and has suffered discrimination, humiliation and worry to himself and his family. He sues for an unspecified amount, to be fixed by the court.

The Government’s motion to dismiss is based upon the statute of limitations, 28 U. S. C. 2501. It says that, so far as appears from the petition, the most recent furlough complained of was in 1946, ten years before the filing of the plaintiff’s petition in 1956. It says, correctly, that the plaintiff’s ignorance of his legal rights does not toll the statute. While it is possible that some part of the plaintiff’s claim might not be barred by the statute of limitations, we think the petition does show a rather plain case of laches, of neglect to seasonably seek enforcement of one’s legal rights, and that it would be unfair to the public treasury to compensate the plaintiff when others have been paid for doing the work which he claims he had the right to do. Plaintiff’s petition will be dismissed.

It is so ordered.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.