Williams v. United States, (1953)

2 Citing cases

  1. Guarriello v. United States

    475 F.2d 640 (Fed. Cir. 1973)   Cited 4 times

    Similarly when plaintiff argues that 32 U.S.C. § 709(g)(1) does not specify that environmental differential pay is included in the 12% premium, he ignores the normal meaning of the words of the statute. Plaintiff has the burden of persuading the court that the language means something other than what normal usage gives it. Williams v. United States, 117 F. Supp. 189, 127 Ct.Cl. 167, 168 (1953). Finally, plaintiff urges that the legislative history of 32 U.S.C. § 709(g)(1) in no way discusses "hazardous duty".

  2. Montilla v. United States

    457 F.2d 978 (Fed. Cir. 1972)   Cited 17 times
    Holding that a "plaintiff is charged with knowledge of [statutes passed by Congress]"

    The above statutes unequivocally require 20 years active service in order to qualify for retirement pay at age 60. Many cases decided by the courts uphold this requirement. See Price v. United States, 100 F. Supp. 310, 121 Ct.Cl. 664, (1951), 104 F. Supp. 99, 121 Ct.Cl. 681 (1952), cert. denied, 344 U.S. 911, 73 S.Ct. 333, 97 L.Ed. 703 (1953); Williams v. United States, 117 F. Supp. 189, 127 Ct.Cl. 167 (1953); Forester v. United States, 291 F.2d 397, 154 Ct.Cl. 270 (1961); Warthen v. United States, 157 Ct.Cl. 798 (1962); and Merrill v. United States, 338 F.2d 372, 168 Ct.Cl. 1 (1964). The plaintiff relies heavily upon Sullivan v. United States, 177 Ct.Cl. 518 (1966) to support his claim.