10 U.S.C. § 2323
Repealed. Pub. L. 115–232, div. A, title VIII, § 812(a)(2)(A), Aug. 13, 2018, 132 Stat. 1846]
[repealed]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 20
cases, 1994–2014 · 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). “§ 2301 note; repealed and recodified as amended at 10 U.S.C. § 2323 by the National Defense *935 Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993, Pub.”
Gulf Grp. Inc. v. United States, 61 Fed. Cl. 338 (Fed. Cl. 2004). “10 U.S.C. § 2323 (e)(3)(B) (2000); see Rothe Development Corp.”
Rothe Dev. Corp. v. United States Dep't of Def. & United States Dep't of the Air Force, 262 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2001). “3859, 3973 (1986) (as amended), codified at 10 U.S.C. § 2323 (1994), which permits the United States Department of Defense (“DOD”) to preferentially select bids submitted by small businesses owned by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals (“SDBs”).”
Rothe Dev. Corp. v. Dep't of Def., 545 F.3d 1023 (Fed. Cir. 2008). “This case concerns the constitutionality of 10 U.S.C. § 2323 (“Section 1207”), which, in relevant part, (1) sets a “goal” that five percent of federal defense contracting dollars for each fiscal year be awarded to certain entities including small business concerns owned and…”
Rothe Dev. Corp. v. U.S. Dep't of Def., 499 F. Supp. 2d 775 (W.D. Tex. 2007). “The 1207 Program, 10 U.S.C. § 2323 ........................”
Rothe Dev. Corp. v. Dep't of Def., 413 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2005). “3859, 3973 (1986), codified at 10 U.S.C. § 2323 , as amended by the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003, Pub.”
Dynalantic Corp. v. United States Dep't of Def., 885 F. Supp. 2d 237 (D.D.C. 2012). “Plaintiff also initially challenged DoD’s separate statutory program, 10 U.S.C. § 2323 (“the DoD program”), which, among other things, imposed an independent obligation on the Agency to participate in Section 8(a); however, as explained herein, this challenge is moot because the…”
Dynalantic Corp. v. United States Dep't of Def., 937 F. Supp. 1 (D.D.C. 1996). “Dynalantic challenges the constitutionality of relevant provisions of the Small Business Act and the implementing regulations that relate to the 8(a) program, as well as 10 U.S.C. § 2323 (a), (e) and the corresponding regulations.”
H.B. Mac, Inc. v. United States, 153 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 1998). “See 10 U.S.C. § 2323 (1994) (establishing Department of Defense contracting goals and authorizing preferences for small disadvantaged businesses); 48 C.”
Rothe Dev. Corp. v. U.S. Dep't of Def., 324 F. Supp. 2d 840 (W.D. Tex. 2004). “10 U.S.C. § 2323 . In order to achieve that goal, Congress authorized the Department of Defense to adjust bids submitted by non-socially and economically disadvantaged firms upwards by ten percent (the “price evaluation adjustment program” or “PEA”).”
Y.S.K. Constr. Co. v. United States, 30 Fed. Cl. 449 (Fed. Cl. 1994). “3816 (1987) (codified as amended at 10 U.S.C. § 2323 (Supp. IV 1992) (hereinafter section 1207)), which sets as a target for minority contractor participation 5% of certain DOD contract funds.”
Dynalantic Corp. v. United States Dep't of Def., 503 F. Supp. 2d 262 (D.D.C. 2007). “The DoD program was established by Section 1207 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1987, and was later codified at 10 U.S.C. § 2323 . The DoD program was initially enacted as a three-year pilot program.”
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.