Court Opinion

ID: 9447487
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 22:36:21.962533+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:31:04.104467
License: Public Domain

LITTLETON, Judge
(Retired) (dissenting in part).
I disagree with the court’s application of the doctrine of res judicata to plaintiffs Clark and Pullman. It is true, as the majority observes, that in their prior suits it was obligatory for them to advance every reason they ever wished to advance to support the claims presented in those suits. But the instant suit is not based on another reason for those claims; it is based on a separate claim.
In their prior suits, plaintiffs sought increased retired pay in their enlisted man status, under Sanders v. United States, 120 Ct.Cl. 501. In this suit, they seek the retired pay of warrant officer status, to which the majority agree that they are entitled. This is not merely another reason for what they sought in the prior case; they are now presenting a different claim. A decision rendered upon one claim is not res judicata as to a different claim. See also dissent in *448Amsden (case of McCarthy) v. United States, No. 134-54, this day decided.
Even if the majority is correct in saying that the same claims are involved, this suit is not barred by res judicata, because the prior case was, as the majority says, based on a compromise of the issues there raised. Abarr v. United States, 153 F.Supp. 387, 139 Ct.Cl. 748, compels the conclusion that where a prior stipulated judgment is based on a compromise, and no court has put its mind, or been asked to put its mind, on the' legal merits of the claims involved, the reasons for the doctrine of res judicata are not present and the doctrine should not be applied.