Adams v. United States
Cases that cite this one
42 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- M.L., a Minor C.D., His Parent S.L., His Parent v. Federal Way School District Washington Superintendent of Public Instruction (9th Cir. 2005)
- M.L. v. Federal Way School District (9th Cir. 2004)
- Exnicios v. United States (United States Court of Federal Claims 2018)
- Klingenschmitt v. United States (United States Court of Federal Claims 2014)
- Wisotsky v. United States (United States Court of Federal Claims 2006)
- Robert F. Christian, II v. United States (Fed. Cir. 2003)
- Golding v. United States (United States Court of Federal Claims 2001)
- Christian v. United States (United States Court of Federal Claims 2001)
- Gavin v. United States (United States Court of Federal Claims 2000)
- Bond v. United States (United States Court of Federal Claims 2000)
- Milas v. United States (United States Court of Federal Claims 1999)
- Frecht v. United States (Court of Claims 1992)
- Collins v. United States (Court of Claims 1991)
- Bio-Medical Applications of Lewiston, Inc. v. United States (Court of Claims 1989)
- Tannehill v. United States (Court of Claims 1989)
- Barry W. Wolfe v. John O. Marsh, Jr., Secretary of the Army (D.C. Cir. 1987)
- Hawley v. United States (Court of Claims 1987)
- Krzeminski v. United States (Court of Claims 1987)
- Alligood v. United States (Court of Claims 1987)
- Braddock v. United States (Court of Claims 1986)
- Murray v. United States (Court of Claims 1985)
- Burns v. United States (Court of Claims 1985)
- David N. Bockoven v. John O. Marsh (Fed. Cir. 1984)
- Charles Robert Rucker v. Secretary of the Army (11th Cir. 1983)
- Duncan v. United States (Court of Claims 1982)
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
ORDER
These cases come again before the court, this time on plaintiffs’ motion, filed October 16, 1979, for correction of the May 16, 1979, opinion of the court, 599 F.2d 984, as amended by its order of September 28,1979, and defendant’s reply of October 30, 1979, to the motion and its own cross-motion for correction of the opinion, as amended.
We find no merit in plaintiffs’ motion. However, defendant now alleges that the order of the court of September 28, 1979, which was intended to conform with Army regulations, does not in fact adequately achieve the purpose intended by the opinion. Defendant says that the parties have agreed upon the dates when those officers, who were retained on active duty pending
Accordingly, since the parties have agreed on these issues,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motion for correction is denied. Defendant’s cross-motion is granted, and the opinion is amended to show that:
(1) each of the plaintiffs in the grade of major is credited with constructive active duty from his original release date until his new release date on March 31, 1977;
(2) each of the plaintiffs in the grade of captain is credited with constructive active duty from his original release date until his new release date on February 28, 1977;
(3) each of the plaintiffs in the grade of chief warrant officer is credited with constructive active duty from his original release date until his new release date on January 31, 1977;
(4) such of the plaintiffs who would have completed 18 or more years of active federal service by the new release date are entitled to have their records corrected to show constructive service in accordance with AR 635-100, ¶3-65d
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.