Colonel David W. Palmer, II v. United States

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that this court “clearly had subject matter jurisdiction” over the military pay claim of a reservist, despite an eventual finding that no money-mandating statute entitled the plaintiff to relief
• noting that Section 204(a)(1) entitles service members to pay and allowances if wrongfully separated from full-time active duty
• explaining that “a question of a court’s subject matter jurisdiction . . . is properly raised by a [Rule] 12(b)(1) motion”
• holding “a member who is serving in part-time reserve duty ... has no lawful pay claim against the United States for unattended drills or for unperformed training duty”
• observing that § 204 defines “two basic categories of pay entitlements for military service”
• describing subject matter jurisdiction as a court’s “general power to adjudicate in specific areas of substantive law”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).