to incur financial ruin for public service. Thus, we hold that Section 6322(a) applies to a grand juror who voluntarily applied for grand jury service and was subsequently “summoned” to serve by a court. Although Ms. Hall may not have acted responsibly, she served as a grand juror pursuant to a valid court summons, which under the statute entitles her to court leave. Therefore, we reverse the Claims Court’s grant of summary judgment. III. For the reasons stated above, we reverse the Claims Court’s summary judgment determination with regard to Ms. Hall’s pre-removal claims and remand the issue for a decision in accordance with our opinion. We affirm the Claims Court’s dismissal of Ms. Hall’s post-removal claims. The issue has already been decided by this court. Hall I, 617 F.3d at 1317 (<HOLDING>). REVERSED AND REMANDED IN PART, AND AFFIRMED
holding that the claims court lacked jurisdiction over ms halls postremoval claims holding that the united states court of federal claims lacked jurisdiction over claims arising from the violation of a criminal statute holding that the claims court has no jurisdiction under the tucker act over claims to social security benefits holding that the court lacked jurisdiction over statelaw tort claims on an interlocutory appeal from a denial of qualified immunity holding that the court of federal claims lacked jurisdiction over claims arising from the violation of a criminal statute