Draft:United States v. Strong (1888): Difference between revisions
Added another source, with Archive.org down it's a little hard to do |
minor citation |
||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
== Background == |
== Background == |
||
On February 4, 1886, the [[United States Secretary of the Navy|Secretary of the Navy]] ordered Lieutenant Commander Edward T. Strong to report for duty as the executive officer on board the United States receiving ship [[USS Wabash (1855)|USS Wabash]], stationed in [[Boston, Massachusetts]]. The order specified that this assignment was classified as "shore duty.". Strong reported for duty on February 20, 1886, and served on the Wabash until May 11, 1886.<ref name=":0">{{cite wikisource|title=United States v. Strong|date=1888-04-16|first=Stanley|last=Matthews|authorlink=Stanley_Matthews_(judge)|wslink=United States v. Strong/Opinion of the Court|pages=|page=656|location=Washington, District of Columbia|publisher=United States Supreme Court|scan=}}</ref> |
On February 4, 1886, the [[United States Secretary of the Navy|Secretary of the Navy]] ordered Lieutenant Commander Edward T. Strong to report for duty as the executive officer on board the United States receiving ship [[USS Wabash (1855)|USS Wabash]], stationed in [[Boston, Massachusetts]]. The order specified that this assignment was classified as "shore duty.". Strong reported for duty on February 20, 1886, and served on the Wabash until May 11, 1886.<ref name=":0">{{cite wikisource|title=United States v. Strong|date=1888-04-16|first=Stanley|last=Matthews|authorlink=Stanley_Matthews_(judge)|wslink=United States v. Strong/Opinion of the Court|pages=|page=656|location=Washington, District of Columbia|publisher=United States Supreme Court|scan=}}</ref> |
||
== Legal Issue == |
== Legal Issue == |
||
Latest revision as of 21:02, 19 October 2024
 | Draft article not currently submitted for review.
This is a draft Articles for creation (AfC) submission. It is not currently pending review. While there are no deadlines, abandoned drafts may be deleted after six months. To edit the draft click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window. To be accepted, a draft should:
It is strongly discouraged to write about yourself, your business or employer. If you do so, you must declare it. Where to get help
How to improve a draft
You can also browse Wikipedia:Featured articles and Wikipedia:Good articles to find examples of Wikipedia's best writing on topics similar to your proposed article. Improving your odds of a speedy review To improve your odds of a faster review, tag your draft with relevant WikiProject tags using the button below. This will let reviewers know a new draft has been submitted in their area of interest. For instance, if you wrote about a female astronomer, you would want to add the Biography, Astronomy, and Women scientists tags. Editor resources
Last edited by Dr vulpes (talk | contribs) 24 hours ago. (Update) |
| United States v. Strong | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued April 2, 1888 Decided April 16, 1888 | |
| Full case name | United States v. Strong |
| Citations | 125 U.S. 656 (more) 8 S. Ct. 1021, 31 L. Ed. 823 |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinion | |
| Majority | Matthews |
United States v. Strong (1888) 125 U.S. 656 (1888), was a United States Supreme Court case, involving Lieutenant Commander Edward T. Strong of the United States Navy, who sought sea duty pay while serving on a docked recruiting ship. The case was an appeal from the Court of Claims and reaffirmed United States v. Symonds.
Background
[edit]On February 4, 1886, the Secretary of the Navy ordered Lieutenant Commander Edward T. Strong to report for duty as the executive officer on board the United States receiving ship USS Wabash, stationed in Boston, Massachusetts.[1] The order specified that this assignment was classified as "shore duty.". Strong reported for duty on February 20, 1886, and served on the Wabash until May 11, 1886.[1]
Legal Issue
[edit]During his service on the Wabash, Strong was paid at the pay rate for shore duty. He contended that his responsibilities and his service aboard the Wabash entitled him to the higher pay rate for sea duty. The dispute was centered on whether his assignment should be considered sea duty or shore duty for the purposes of pay.[2] Strong filed a claim with the Court of Claims to recover the difference between sea duty and shore duty pay for his period of time on the Wabash.[3] The court ruled in his favor, awarding him the pay difference between the two rates which was $111.20[1]. The judgment acknowledged that, despite the designation of his assignment as shore duty, the actual duties performed aboard a naval vessel aligned closer with sea service. Disagreeing with the Court of Claims' decision, the government appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court. The court ruled in favor of Strong reaffirming the precedent set in United States v. Symond that ships at sea or that could be used at sea were entitled to sea duty pay.[4][5][6]
References
[edit]- ^ a b c Matthews, Stanley (1888-04-16). . Washington, District of Columbia: United States Supreme Court. p. 656 – via Wikisource.
- ^ Virgin Islands Reports Containing Opinions of Courts of Record, and Others, Relating to the Virgin Islands. Vol. 1. 1959. Retrieved 2024-10-16.
- ^ The Encyclopedia of United States Supreme Court Reports. University of Michigan. 1908. pp. 505–506. Retrieved 2024-10-16.
- ^ Walker, Daniel (1954). Military Law. Prentice-Hall.
- ^ "Constitutional Law. Army and Navy. Suit to Enjoin Enforcement of Military Orders Held Suit against the United States". Virginia Law Review. 33 (2): 202. 1947. doi:10.2307/1068501.
- ^ The United States Army and Navy Journal and Gazette of the Regular and Volunteer Forces. Army and Navy Journal. 1895. p. 301. Retrieved 2024-10-16.