Rebecca Salles v. United States (1998)

Salles v. United States, 156 F.3d 1383, 1384 (Fed.

No. 98-473, codified at 28 U.S.C § 524(c), which does not authorize payment promises providing for a percentage of all seizures, as alleged.” Salles v. United States, 156 F.3d 1383, 1384 (Fed.Cir.1998).

See id.; Salles v. United States, 156 F.3d 1383, 1384 (Fed.

“Actual authority may be either express or implied.” Liberty Ammunition, Inc. v. United States, 835 F.3d at 1402 (citing Salles v. United States, 156 F.3d 1383, 1384 (Fed.

Cl. 326, 333 (2016) (citing Salles v. United States, 156 F.3d 1383, 1384 (Fed.

A government official acts with implied actual authority if this authority is “an integral part of the duties assigned to [the Government employee.” Salles v. United States, 156 F.3d 1383, 1384 (Fed.

The Secretary of HHS had Actual Authority to Contract on the Government’s Behalf “An agent’s actual authority to bind the Government may be either express or implied.” Marchena v. United States, 128 Fed.Cl. 326, 333 (2016) (citing Salles v. United States, 156 F.3d 1383, 1384 (Fed.

Salles v. United States, 156 F.3d 1383, 1384 (Fed.Cir.1998) (citation omitted).

Cl. at 682 ) (quoting-in-turn McAfee, 46 Fed.Cl. at 435 ) the court found that under the Asset Forfeiture Fund Statute, 28 U.S.C. § 524 , “the law is clear that [the] ASAC ... lacked the authority to promise Plaintiff a commission paid from the Asset Forfeiture Fund ...,” id. (citing, e.g., Salles v. United States, 156 F.3d 1383, 1384 (Fed.Cir.1998)) (the Asset Forfeiture Fund Statute “does not authorize payment promises providing for a percentage of all seizures”); Brunner …

Salles v. United States, 156 F.3d at 1383.

See Salles v. United States, 156 F.3d 1383, 1384 (Fed.

See Salles, 156 F.3d at 1383-84 (affirming trial court’s summary judgment, which found that the confidential informant failed to adduce evidence of requisite authority to support the allegation of an oral contract with the government for the payment of a percentage of the value of seizures and forfeitures that the informant helped the government obtain); Bailey v. United States, 40 Fed.Cl. 449, 469 (1998) (explaining that, in the record before the court on a motion to dismis…

See Salles, 156 F.3d at 1384 ; Doe, ll0 F.3d at 1584-85; Jumah,90 Fed.

See Salles v. United States, 156 F.3d 1383, 1384 (Fed.

See Salles v. United States, 156 F.3d 1383, 1384 (Fed.

See Salles v. United States, 156 F.3d 1383, 1384 (Fed.

See Salles v. United States, 156 F.3d 1383, 1384 (Fed.

Cir. 2007); see also Salles v. United States, 156 F.3d 1383, 1384 (Fed.

An officer of the United States who does not possess express contracting authority may bind the United States under limited circumstances, but only if he or she has “implied actual authority.” See Winter v. Cath-dr/Balti Joint Venture, 497 F.3d 1339, 1344, 1346 (Fed.Cir.). reh’g and reh’q en banc denied (Fed.Cir.2007); see also Salles v. United States, 156 F.3d 1383, 1384 (Fed.Cir.1998); H.

See also Salles v. United States, 156 F.3d 1383, 1383-84 (Fed.Cir.1998) (affirming summary judgment for government where no facts of implied actual authority were tendered).

See Salles v. United States, 156 F.3d 1383, 1384 (Fed.Cir.1998).

See Salles v. United States, 156 F.3d 1383, 1384 (Fed.Cir.1998) (“stating that the Comprehensive Forfeiture Act of 1984, 28 U.S.C § 524(c) ‘does not authorize payment promises providing for a percentage of all seizures’”); Brunner v. United States, 70 Fed.Cl. 623, 641 (2006); Khairallah v. United States, 43 Fed.Cl. 57, 63-64 (1999) (determining that DEA field agents lacked implied actual authority to promise an award to an informant based on the outcome of a mission based on…

See Salles, 156 F.3d at 1384 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 524 (c)).

Mar.31, 2005); see also Salles v. United States, 156 F.3d 1383, 1384 (Fed.Cir.1998); H.

Landau & Co. v. United States, 886 F.2d 322, 324 (Fed.Cir.), as amended on reh’g (1989) (alterations in original); see also Salles v. United States, 156 F.3d 1383, 1384 (Fed.Cir.1998); Son Broadcasting, Inc. v. United States, 52 Fed.Cl. 815, 820-21 (2002).

Son Broadcasting, Inc. v. United States, 52 Fed.Cl. 815, 820 (2002); see also Salles v. United States, 156 F.3d 1383, 1384 (Fed.Cir.1998).

See, e.g., Salles v. United States, 156 F.3d 1383, 1384 (Fed.Cir.1998) (affirming summary judgment in favor of the DEA in a breach of contract action filed by a confidential informant for payment of a percentage of value of seizures and forfeitures arising from her cooperation with DEA); Henke v. United States, 43 Fed.

Landau & Co. v. United States, 886 F.2d 322, 324 (Fed.Cir.1989); see Salles v. United States, 156 F.3d 1383 (1998); Roy v. United States, 38 Fed.Cl. 184, 188 (1997).