10 U.S.C. § 2324
Repealed. Pub. L. 116–283, div. A, title XVIII, § 1881(a), Jan. 1, 2021, 134 Stat. 4293]
[repealed]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 25
cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1995–2026 · leading case: Les Brownlee, Acting Sec'y of the Army v. Dyncorp, 349 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Les Brownlee, Acting Sec'y of the Army v. Dyncorp, 349 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2003). “However, the Board held the regulation invalid on the ground that it was contrary to the statute ( 10 U.S.C. § 2324 (2000)) and that the statute allowed partial cost recovery.”
Raytheon Co. v. Sec'y of Def., 940 F.3d 1310 (Fed. Cir. 2019). “DISCUSSION I Under 10 U.S.C. § 2324 (e)(B), certain costs are unal- lowable in a cost proposal, including: Costs incurred to influence (directly or indirectly) legislative action on any matter pending before Congress, a State legislature, or a legislative body of a political…”
Donald H. Rumsfeld, Sec'y of Def. v. Gen. Dynamics Corp., 365 F.3d 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2004). “The government appeals from the final decision of the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (“Board”) insofar as it held that 10 U.S.C. § 2324 (k) required the apportionment of legal costs for defending against different claims with different outcomes within a single…”
Boeing North Am., Inc. v. James G. Roche, Sec'y of the Air Force, 298 F.3d 1274 (Fed. Cir. 2002). “As to the "first”, "second”, "third”, and "fifth” items above, FAR § 31.”
Sw. Marine, Inc. v. United States, 535 F.3d 1012 (9th Cir. 2008). “Specifically, Southwest Marine contends that 10 U.S.C. § 2324 (k) provides an exhaustive list of unallowable costs and does not authorize any regulation expanding that list.”
Sufi Network Servs., Inc. v. United States, 785 F.3d 585 (Fed. Cir. 2015). “109-364, § 852 (b) (codified at 10 U.S.C. § 2324 note). The final version of FAR § 53.”
United States ex rel. Schumer v. Hughes Aircraft Co., 63 F.3d 1512 (9th Cir. 1995). “See 10 U.S.C. § 2324 (i). 2 Schumer argues that costs allocated to the B-2 subcontract were unallowable pursuant to the contract between Northrop and Hughes.”
Fluor Hanford, Inc. v. United States, 66 Fed. Cl. 230 (Fed. Cl. 2005). “The contracting officer’s justification for withholding full reimbursement of plaintiffs costs of defense is a FAR provision that was issued pursuant to the Major Fraud Act of 1988, 10 U.S.C. § 2324 , 41 U.S.C. § 256 ; 48 C.”
Bill Strong Enter., Inc. v. John Shannon, Acting Sec'y of the Army, 49 F.3d 1541 (Fed. Cir. 1995). “583 , 682 (codified at 10 U.S.C. § 2324 (1988 & Supp. V 1993)). The Act specified that penalties would be assessed against a Government defense contractor that claimed an unallowable tost in a submitted proposal for settlement of indirect costs.”
Sec'y of Def. v. Raytheon Co., 56 F.4th 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2023). “See 10 U.S.C. § 2324 (e), (h) (2020). 1 An allowable cost is a cost that complies with all of the following requirements: (1) reasonableness; (2) allocabil- ity; (3) “[s]tandards promulgated by the [Cost Accounting Standards (“CAS”)] Board, if applicable; otherwise, gener- ally…”
Raytheon Co. & Raytheon Missile Sys. (A.S.B.C.A. 2021). “Title 10 U.S.C. § 2324 , Allowable costs under defense contracts, provides: 8 See, e.”
Sw. Marine, Inc v. United States (9th Cir. 2008). “Specifically, Southwest Marine contends that 10 U.S.C. § 2324 (k) provides an exhaustive list of unallowable costs and does not authorize any regulation expanding that list.”
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.