Explore BrainMass
Share

Case Brief of OPM, Petitioner v. Charles Richmond (1990)

This content was STOLEN from BrainMass.com - View the original, and get the already-completed solution here!

This is a case brief of Office of Personnel Management, Petitioner v. Charles Richmond - Citation: No. 88-1943. Supreme Court of the United States. 496 U.S. 414. (1990).

This summary follows the standard case brief format, including the following sections: 1) Case Name and Citation, 2) Key Facts, 3) Legal Issues Presented to Court, 4) Holding of the Court, 5) Court's Rationale or Reasoning.

Words: 847, Pages: 2, Subject: Government Procurement Law

© BrainMass Inc. brainmass.com October 25, 2018, 9:38 am ad1c9bdddf
https://brainmass.com/business/business-law/case-brief-of-opm-petitioner-v-charles-richmond-1990-581357

Solution Preview

1. Case Name and Citation

Office of Personnel Management, Petitioner v. Charles Richmond
Citation: No. 88-1943. Supreme Court of the United States. 496 U.S. 414. (1990)

2. Key Facts

The respondent, Charles Richmond, sought advice from a federal employee of the Navy Public Works Center's Civilian Personnel Department in 1986 and received erroneous information that led him to believe that he could work overtime as a school bus driver and still receive full disability benefits for impaired vision so long as he kept his income for the previous and following years below the statutory level. As a result, he earned more than the limit and lost six months of benefits, prompting Richmond to claim that the erroneous and unauthorized advice should rise to equitable estoppel against the Government and payment of the benefits contrary to the statutory terms. Richmond was receiving disability annuity under 5 U.S.C. 8337(a) due to impaired eyesight preventing him from performing his job as a welder at the Navy Public Works Center in San Diego, California in 1981. This statute directs that the disability payments will end if the retired employee is "restored to an earning capacity fairly comparable to the current rate of pay of the position occupied at the ...

Solution Summary

This is a case brief of Office of Personnel Management, Petitioner v. Charles Richmond - Citation: No. 88-1943. Supreme Court of the United States. 496 U.S. 414. (1990).

$2.19
See Also This Related BrainMass Solution

Office of Personnel Management, Petitioner v. Charles Richmond

Read Chapters 1-2 of the Tiefer/Shook textbook
Read Office of Personnel Management, Petitioner v. Charles Richmond Case from text at pp. 13-19
Read Appeal of University of California, San Francisco from text at pp. 688-693
Review Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) at http://farsite.hill.af.mil/vffara.htm (Links to an external site.)
Scan relevant Reference Sources and Internet Websites listed under Course Resources for outside reading material concerning Government Procurement LawComplete case briefs for two assigned cases:

Office of Personnel Management, Petitioner v. Charles Richmond Case from text at pp. 13-19;
Appeal of University of California, San Francisco from text at pp. 688-693
Instructions:

Submit a written "Case Brief" for both of the above cases. Providing a "Case Brief" will improve your critical legal thinking and writing skills and help you gain a better understanding of the Court's decision and the underlying law affecting an area of government procurement.

The format for your written "Case Brief" consists for five parts:

Case name and citation
Key Facts
Legal Issue(s) Presented before Court
Holding of the Court
Court's Rationale or Reasoning for its Decision
Take a look at the following link for additional guidance on how to write a written case brief: http://www.lib.jjay.cuny.edu/research/brief.html (Links to an external site.). You are not required to complete steps 6 or 7 discussed at the above web site.

Your challenge will be to condense the material in your text yet at the same time ensure that you sufficiently cover the 5 parts noted above.

You are required to write your answers with Microsoft Word (Times New Roman, 12 pt) and include your names on all pages for grading purposes.

View Full Posting Details