Cornetta v. U.S.

Citation837 F.2d 473
Decision Date27 January 1988
Docket NumberNo. 87-1121,87-1121
PartiesRonald J. CORNETTA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The UNITED STATES of America and John Lehman, Secretary of the Navy, Defendant- Appellee.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

George S. King, Broadhurst, Brook, Mangham & Hardy, Baton Rouge, La., argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also on the brief was Louis R. Davis, Broadhurst, Brook, Mangham & Hardy, Lafayette, La., of counsel.

John S. Groat, Commercial Litigation Branch, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., argued for defendant-appellee. With him on the brief were Richard K. Willard, Asst. Atty. Gen., David M. Cohen, Director and Thomas W. Petersen, Asst. Director. Also on the brief was LCDR Michael Lawlor, Dept. of the Navy, of counsel.

Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, FRIEDMAN, RICH, DAVIS, SMITH, NIES, NEWMAN, BISSELL, ARCHER, and MAYER, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

The Suggestion for Rehearing in Banc filed by Ronald J. Cornetta, is accepted.

On or before March 30, 1988, the parties shall file briefs treating of these questions:

When a claim is filed within the statutory period of limitations, and the government asserts the equitable defense of laches, should the presumption of prejudice rising from delay be eliminated, and earlier holdings recognizing that presumption, see, e.g., Pepper v. United States, 794 F.2d 1571, 1575 (Fed.Cir.1986), Deering v. United States, 223 Ct.Cl. 342, 620 F.2d 242, 246 (1980), Brundage v. United States, 205 Cl.Ct. 502, 504 F.2d 1382, 1386 (1974), be to that extent overruled?

Can the government establish prejudice when the amount of a claim for back pay is fixed, and claimant's delay could not therefore have increased the government's burden? See, e.g., Chappelle v. United States, 168 Ct.Cl. 362, 366 (1964); Simon v. United States, 113 Ct.Cl. 182, 200 (1949).

Should potential for recovery of back pay for the time it would take a claimant to establish entitlement constitute prejudice to the government?

Should potential receipt of retired pay by a military officer constitute prejudice to the government, having in mind that "military retired pay is reduced compensation for reduced current services," McCarty v. McCarty, 453 U.S. 210, 222, 101 S.Ct. 2728, 2736, 69 L.Ed.2d 589 (1981)?

The parties will in due course be notified of the date for oral argument before the court in banc.

To continue reading

Request your trial
50 cases
  • Cornetta v. U.S.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
    • 20 Junio 1988
    ...... But, again, these were civilians, not military; there are no military laches cases from the Supreme Court. .         We therefore decline the government's invitation first presented to us at this in banc to hold on the authority of these cases that a military officer who does not diligently pursue his rights abandons "title" to his office and is barred from judicial relief regardless of prejudice to the government. In the first place, prejudice was apparent in those cases. And we ......
  • Sanofi-Synthelabo v. Apotex Inc.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • 19 Junio 2007
  • Canady v. Erbe Elektromedizin GmbH, Civil Action No. 96-CV-2012 (RMU).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • 10 Septiembre 1998
  • Visto Corp. v. Sproqit Technologies, Inc., C 04-0651 EMC.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Northern District of California
    • 7 Febrero 2006
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT