Today the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a Merit Systems Protection Board case, one precedential opinion in a government contract case (with an opinion from Judge Hughes concurring in part and dissenting in part), one nonprecedential opinion in a veterans case, and three nonprecedential Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions.
Montelongo v. OPM (Precedential)
Michael Montelongo applied for a civil service retirement annuity for which applicants must meet a threshold requirement of having at least five years of “civilian service.” 5 U.S.C. § 8410. It is undisputed that Mr. Montelongo could not meet that requirement unless his time as a cadet student at the United States Military Academy at West Point counted as such service. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) ruled that the cadet time did not qualify and therefore denied him the annuity. The Merit Systems Protection Board rejected Mr. Montelongo’s challenge to OPM’s ruling. We affirm.
Callaway Manor Apartments v. United States (Precedential)
Appellants Callaway Manor Apartments, Fox Garden Apartments, Fox Manor Apartments, and Lake Garden Apartments (collectively, “Appellants”) appeal from a decision of the United States Court of Federal Claims (“Claims Court”) granting the government’s motion for summary judgment on certain breach of contract and takings claims. Callaway Manor Apartments, Ltd. v. United States, 136 Fed. Cl. 313 (2018). We find that the Claims Court improperly applied the law on the first issue and did so, in part, with respect to the second issue. Therefore, we reverse-in-part, vacate-in-part, affirm-in-part, and remand.
HUGHES, Circuit Judge, concurring-in-part and dissenting- in-part.
I would affirm the decision of the Court of Federal Claims. As such, I respectfully dissent-in-part.
Johnson v. Wilkie (Nonprecedential)
David L. Johnson (“Johnson”) appeals from a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veteran Claims (“Veterans Court”). The Veterans Court affirmed a decision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”) that denied his claim for entitlement to service connection for left and right knee disabilities. We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.