Court Opinion

ID: 9447486
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 22:36:21.960182+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:31:04.103827
License: Public Domain

MADDEN, Judge,
dissents from the entry of the order of November 2, 1960 (see footnote, ante, p. 444), as follows:
I do not agree to the substitution, made in the court’s order dated November 2, 1960, in the last paragraph of the order, the paragraph relating to William R. Giddens and others. I think that the opinion of June 8, 1960,‡‡ was correct in this regard. The Government, in its motion for reconsideration and clarification, does not ask for such a complete reversal of the court’s position. It says, on page 5 of its brief:
“In this respect it would seem that the Court would at least require those plaintiffs who have not reverted to offer some proof, such as affidavits, that had they known they could have reverted to warrant officer they would have done so within three months of their advancement on the retired list or within three months of the date of approval of the Act of June 19, 1948, supra, whichever was the later.”
I think it is quite unfair to forfeit the rights of these plaintiffs for failure to make an election which, as the opinion of the court shows, they never had an opportunity to make.

 Original opinion read:
Plaintiff Holland was a plaintiff in Abarr v. United States, Ot.Ol. No. 391-52. The compromise judgment granted Mm in that suit covered the period up to and inehiding June 30, 1952. Pullman was plaintiff in Maar v. United States, Ct.Cl. No. 50223. The compromise judgment granted Mm covered the period to and including September 30, 1949.
The foregoing plaintiffs are not entitled to recover for the periods for which payment has been made, but are entitled to recover thereafter.
All the other plaintiffs in this action are entitled to recover for the entire period from the date each was denied the retired pay of a warrant officer until date of judgment, unless the denial of such retired pay antedates November 1, 1946, in which case they are entitled to judgment from said date of November 1, 1946, to date of judgment.