Case Name: DENIS E. COSBY v. THE UNITED STATES
Court: United States Court of Claims
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1969-11-14
Citations: 189 Ct. Cl. 528
Docket Number: No. 88-67
Parties: DENIS E. COSBY v. THE UNITED STATES
Judges: Before CownN, Chief Judge, LaRamoee, Dureee, Davis, ColliNs, SkeltoN and Nichols, Judges.
Reporter: United States Court of Claims Reports
Volume: 189
Pages: 528–546

Head Matter:
417 F. 2d 1345
DENIS E. COSBY v. THE UNITED STATES
[No. 88-67.
Decided November 14, 1969]
Robert Sheriffs Moss, attorney of record, for plaintiff. Olayton 0. Rost, Hart, Moss, <& Tavernier and Lehman, Thoits & Hanna, of counsel.
Steven L. Oohen, with whom was Assistant Attorney General William D. RueJeelshaus, for defendant. Edward Wem-traub, of counsel.
Before CownN, Chief Judge, LaRamoee, Dureee, Davis, ColliNs, SkeltoN and Nichols, Judges.

Opinion:
Per Curiam:
This case was referred to Trial Commissioner Lloyd Fletcher with directions to make findings of fact and recommendation for conclusions of law under the order of reference and Rule 57(a) [since September 1, 1969, Rule 134(h)]. The commissioner has done so in an opinion and report filed on March 14, 1969. Exceptions to the commissioner's findings of fact and recommended conclusion of law were filed by plaintiff and the case has been submitted to the court on oral argument of counsel and the briefs of the parties. Since the court agrees with the commissioner's opinion, findings and recommended conclusion of law, as hereinafter set forth, it hereby adopts the same as the basis for its judgment in this case. Therefore, plaintiff is not entitled to recover and the petition is dismissed.
OPINION OP COMMISSIONER
Fletcher, Commissioner:
On March 11, 1968, the court entered an order which denied the defendant's motion to dismiss the petition herein on the ground that the plaintiff was barred by the doctrine of laches. Thereupon, the case was remanded to the trial commissioner for trial on the factual issue of whether plaintiff acted under the duress of Federal Aviation Agency (FAA) officials when he submitted a resignation from his position in that agency on November 28, 1961. A trial on that issue has been held.
Based upon a full review of the record developed at the trial, and for the reasons set forth in the following detailed and ultimate findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is concluded that plaintiff has failed to sustain his burden of showing that, in submitting his resignation, he acted under the duress or coercion of his superiors. Therefore, plaintiff's petition should be dismissed.
The concurring opinion of Nichols, Judge, follows the opinion of the trial commissioner which has been adopted by the court.