B-110121, JUL 28, 1952

B-110121: Jul 28, 1952

Additional Materials:

Contact:

Edda Emmanuelli Perez
(202) 512-2853
EmmanuelliPerezE@gao.gov

 

Office of Public Affairs
(202) 512-4800
youngc1@gao.gov

COURT OF CLAIMS NO. 191-52 THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF JULY 7. WHEREIN IT IS STATED THAT THE PETITION FILED IN THE ABOVE-ENTITLED CAUSE STATES A CAUSE OF ACTION PARALLELING THE CASE OF ARTHUR E. IT IS STATED THAT THE PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEYS HAVE SUBMITTED TO YOUR DEPARTMENT A MOTION TO DISMISS TO BE HELD IN ESCROW PENDING ADMINISTRATIVE SETTLEMENT OF THE CLAIM BY THIS OFFICE. PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT THE CLAIMS DIVISION OF THIS OFFICE IS BEING INSTRUCTED TO CONSIDER THE PRESENT CASE FOR SETTLEMENT UPON THE RECEIPT OF A REQUEST FOR SUCH ACTION FROM THE CLAIMANT OR HIS ATTORNEY. SIMILAR ACTION WILL BE TAKEN IN THIS OFFICE IN OTHER CASES CONTROLLED BY THE DANIELSON CASE UPON RECEIPT OF CLAIMS AND.

B-110121, JUL 28, 1952

RE: CHARLES R. CARLSON V. THE UNITED STATES, COURT OF CLAIMS NO. 191-52

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF JULY 7, 1952, AHB:JRF 154-16 191, WHEREIN IT IS STATED THAT THE PETITION FILED IN THE ABOVE-ENTITLED CAUSE STATES A CAUSE OF ACTION PARALLELING THE CASE OF ARTHUR E. DANIELSON V. UNITED STATES, C. CLS. NO. 49787, DECIDED FEBRUARY 5, 1952, AS TO WHICH YOU ADVISED THIS OFFICE BY LETTER DATED JUNE 12, 1952, THAT THE SOLICITOR GENERAL HAD DECIDED NOT TO SEEK REVIEW OF THE COURT'S DECISION IN THAT CASE. ALSO, IT IS STATED THAT THE PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEYS HAVE SUBMITTED TO YOUR DEPARTMENT A MOTION TO DISMISS TO BE HELD IN ESCROW PENDING ADMINISTRATIVE SETTLEMENT OF THE CLAIM BY THIS OFFICE, WHICH PROCEDURE YOU RECOMMEND BE FOLLOWED IN THIS AND ALL OTHER CASES CONTROLLED BY THE DANIELSON CASE, SINCE THE GOVERNMENT HAS NO FURTHER DEFENSE TO OFFER TO THE ACTIONS BROUGHT IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS AND ADMINISTRATIVE SETTLEMENT OF SUCH CLAIMS WOULD BE LESS COSTLY AND TIME-CONSUMING THAN EFFECTING PAYMENT THROUGH COURT JUDGMENTS.

IN VIEW OF THE COURT'S COMPREHENSIVE OPINION IN THE DANIELSON CASE CLARIFYING ITS POSITION AND SETTING FORTH A NOT INADMISSIBLE JUDICIAL BASIS FOR ITS CONCLUSIONS IN SUCH CASE AND IN THE PRIOR SIMILAR CASE OF CARROLL V. UNITED STATES, 117 C. CLS. 53 (SEE, ALSO, GEORGE H. SHEA V. UNITED STATES, C. CLS. NO. 49370, DECIDED MARCH 6, 1951), AND SINCE THE SOLICITOR GENERAL HAS DECIDED AGAINST SEEKING A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO REVIEW THE COURT'S JUDGMENT IN THE DANIELSON CASE, PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT THE CLAIMS DIVISION OF THIS OFFICE IS BEING INSTRUCTED TO CONSIDER THE PRESENT CASE FOR SETTLEMENT UPON THE RECEIPT OF A REQUEST FOR SUCH ACTION FROM THE CLAIMANT OR HIS ATTORNEY. SIMILAR ACTION WILL BE TAKEN IN THIS OFFICE IN OTHER CASES CONTROLLED BY THE DANIELSON CASE UPON RECEIPT OF CLAIMS AND, IF PENDING IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS, OF NOTICE THAT THERE HAS BEEN FILED WITH YOUR DEPARTMENT A MOTION TO DISMISS TO BE HELD IN ESCROW PENDING SETTLEMENT HERE OF SUCH CLAIMS. YOU WILL BE ADVISED IN EACH CASE WHEN SETTLEMENT HAS BEEN ISSUED.

THIS OFFICE WISHES AGAIN TO EXPRESS ITS APPRECIATION FOR THE SPLENDID COOPERATION OF YOUR DEPARTMENT IN OBTAINING A REARGUMENT OF THE ISSUES IN THESE CASES AND A CLEAR RESTATEMENT OF THE COURT'S POSITION.