37 U.S.C. § 202
Pay grades: retired Coast Guard rear admirals (lower half)
An officer of the Coast Guard holding a permanent appointment in the grade of rear admiral (lower half) on the retired list, and who in time of war or national emergency has served satisfactorily on active duty for two years in that grade or in a higher grade, is entitled when on active duty to the basic pay of a rear admiral.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1944–2022 · leading case: United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392 (1976).
United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392 (1976). “The pay claims there rested flatly upon the mandatory provision contained in 37 U. S. C. § 202 (l) to the effect that an officer “serving as Assistant Judge Advocate General of the Navy is entitled to the basic pay of a rear admiral (lower half) or brigadier general, as…”
Mitchell v. United States, 229 Ct. Cl. 1 (Ct. Cl. 1981). “2d 1354 (1974), when the other legislation referred to consisted of the provision of 37 U.S.C. § 202 (1) to the effect that an officer in plaintiffs category is entitled "to the basic pay of a rear admiral (lower half) or brigadier general, as *28 appropriate.”
Halliday v. United States, 7 Cl. Ct. 315 (Ct. Cl. 1985). “22 (1970)), concurred in by the Navy Department, ruling that the provisions of § 5149(b) and (c), entitling an AJAG to the rank and grade of rear admiral or brigadier general, and 37 U.S.C. § 202 (l), authorizing pay at such grade when an officer is serving as an AJAG, apply…”
Selman v. United States, 204 Ct. Cl. 675 (Ct. Cl. 1974). “37 U.S.C. § 202 (1) (1970) was originally designated In Pub.”
Selman v. United States, 723 F.2d 877 (Fed. Cir. 1983). “The captains argued that 37 U.S.C. § 202 (7) 1 entitled *879 AJAGs to the basic pay of a rear admiral (lower half).”
Rawlins v. United States, 225 Ct. Cl. 367 (Ct. Cl. 1980). “” (Emphasis supplied). In that case we awarded the plaintiff-lawyers, who were serving as Assistant Judge Advocate Generals without being appointed to that grade, the pay of that office because, as shown by the statute, Congress had expressly provided in the statute that they be…”
Donovan v. United States, 580 F.2d 1203 (3rd Cir. 1978). “United States, supra, (two naval Assistant Judge Advocates General proved statutory entitlement to higher pay under 37 U.S.C. § 202 (7); court ordered retroactive benefits).”
Robert Davis Powers, Jr. v. The United States, 401 F.2d 813 (Ct. Cl. 1968). “Plaintiff is a former member of the United States Navy who was retired from that service on May 1, 1964, after serving as a rear admiral and receiving the maximum basic pay of a rear admiral of the upper half, pay grade 0-8, pursuant to 37 U.S.C. § 202 (i). At that time, he was…”
Selman v. United States, 1 Cl. Ct. 702 (Ct. Cl. 1983). “While serving as AJAGs (and at all other relevant times) both men were captains and were compensated on the basis of an 06 pay grade.”
Hilton v. United States, 227 Ct. Cl. 734 (Ct. Cl. 1981). “” Plaintiffs claim is not based upon a similar mandatory provision. Assuming, arguendo, the correctness of the decision of the GAO that plaintiff was entitled to a temporary promotion, plaintiff does not seek recovery before us on that theory.”
Applicability of the Nat'l Emergencies Act to Statutes That Do Not Expressly Require the President to Declare a Nat'l Emergency (OLC 2016). “3; see NEA Hearings at 93; 37 U.S.C. § 202 (e) (1970) (altering the pay of certain rear admirals who served in active duty “in time of .”
Bader v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2022). “In addition, as the government notes, 37 U.S.C. § 202 concerns retirement pay, but only applies to certain United States Coast Guard ranks.”
— 37 U.S.C. § 202(e) — 1 case
Applicability of the Nat'l Emergencies Act to Statutes That Do Not Expressly Require the President to Declare a Nat'l Emergency (OLC 2016). “3; see NEA Hearings at 93; 37 U.S.C. § 202 (e) (1970) (altering the pay of certain rear admirals who served in active duty “in time of .”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.