10 U.S.C. § 2301
Repealed. Pub. L. 103–355, title I, § 1501(a), Oct. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 3296]
[repealed]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 82
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1958–2025 · leading case: United States Ex Rel. Burlbaw v. Orenduff, 548 F.3d 931 (10th Cir. 2008).
United States Ex Rel. Burlbaw v. Orenduff, 548 F.3d 931 (10th Cir. 2008). “3816 , 3973 (1986) (originally appearing as 10 U.S.C. § 2301 note; repealed and recodified as amended at 10 U.”
KINNETT DAIRIES, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. J. C. FARROW, Etc., Et Al., Defendants-Appellants, Flav-O-Rich, Inc., Intervenor-Appellant, 580 F.2d 1260 (5th Cir. 1978). “(1976), and the Armed Services Procurement Act, 10 U.S.C. § 2301 et seq. (1976). . The low bidders and the value of their bids were as follows: Group Solicitation Basis Low Bidder Value * I Small Business Kinnett $702,157.”
Paul v. United States, 371 U.S. 245 (1963). “21 , as amended, 10 U. S. C. § 2301 . [20] February House Hearings, at 521 (statement of Colonel P.”
Iconco, a Corp., & Cross-Appellant v. Jensen Constr. Co., a Corp., & Cross-Appellee, 622 F.2d 1291 (8th Cir. 1980). “In our search for the will of Congress, we also examine the Armed Services Procurement Act, 10 U.S.C. § 2301 et seq., under which the bids in question were solicited.”
United States of Am. & Charles A. Bowsher, Comptroller Gen. of the United States of Am. v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 751 F.2d 220 (8th Cir. 1984). “The Armed Services Procurement Act, 10 U.S.C. § 2301 et seq., applies to contracts for the purchase of aircraft entered into by the Air Force, whether for the Air Force’s use or otherwise, where payment is to be made from appropriated funds.”
Northrop Corp. v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 705 F.2d 1030 (9th Cir. 1983). “(1981), and the Armed Services Procurement Act (“ASP Act”), 10 U.S.C. §§ 2301 et seq., implemented by ASP Regulations (“ASPR”), 32 C.”
Com. Energies, Inc. v. The United States, 929 F.2d 682 (Fed. Cir. 1991). “3973 (codified as amended at 10 U.S.C. § 2301 note (1988)), of the act states that: [A] goal of 5 percent of the amount [of defense contract funds] shall be the objective of the Department of Defense .”
United States v. Georgia Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 371 U.S. 285 (1963). “127, 10 U. S. C. § 2301 et seq., which extended and elaborated the federal procurement policy of negotiated rates which, as we noted in the Public Utilities Comm'n of California case, conflicted with California's policy of regulated rates.”
Hoke Co., Inc. & Alley-Cassetty Coal Co. v. Tennessee Valley Auth., 854 F.2d 820 (6th Cir. 1988). “The court in Cincinnati Electronics based its decision on the congressional statement in the “Declaration of Policy” of the Armed Services Procurement Act, 10 U.S.C. § 2301 , et seq. (which was the Act in question in Cincinnati Electronics ), which reads in pertinent part as…”
Weeks Marine, Inc. v. United States, 79 Fed. Cl. 22 (Fed. Cl. 2007). “SAD’s Solicitation Violates 10 U.S.C. § 2301 and Related Regulations.”
Aerolease Long Beach v. United States, 31 Fed. Cl. 342 (Fed. Cl. 1994). “10 U.S.C. § 2301 (b)(1). Concomitant with this competitive mandate, however, the CICA also requires that the Government exploit full and open competition under a veil of impartiality.”
J.H. Rutter Rex Mfg. Co., Inc. v. United States of Am., 706 F.2d 702 (5th Cir. 1983). “Since it employs approximately 1500 persons in its combined operations, the appellant is ineligible to bid on certain government contracts which have been set aside for small businesses 1 pursuant to- the Armed Services Procurement Act, 10 U.S.C. § 2301 et seq., and the Small…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.