U.S. Code » Title 10 » Subtitle Subtitle A— General Military Law › Part PART IV— SERVICE, SUPPLY, AND PROPERTY › Chapter [CHAPTER 140— TRANSFERRED]

10 U.S.C. § 2377

Renumbered § 3453]

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 10 CasesGoogle Scholar

[renumbered]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1997–2023 · leading case: Palantir Usg, Inc. v. United States, 129 Fed. Cl. 218 (Fed. Cl. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Palantir Usg, Inc. v. United States, 129 Fed. Cl. 218 (Fed. Cl. 2016). · cites it 76× “REDACTED OPINION Pre-Award Bid Protest; Cross-Motions for Judgment on the Administrative Record; Commercial Availability; 10 U.S.C. § 2377 ; Bad Faith; Supplementation to the Administrative Record; Permanent Injunction.”
Palantir Usg, Inc. v. United States, 904 F.3d 980 (Fed. Cir. 2018). · cites it 9× “The United States Court of Federal Claims granted the injunction after concluding that the Army failed to comply with the requirements of 10 U.S.C. § 2377 . We affirm. BACKGROUND 1 Palantir USG, Inc.”
Palantir Tech. Inc. v. United States, 128 Fed. Cl. 21 (Fed. Cl. 2016). · cites it 5× “Protestors’ complaint had seven counts: In count one, protestors allege that the Army violated 10 U.S.C. § 2377 (2012) and 48 C.F.R §§ 10.”
Hydro Eng'g, Inc. v. United States, 37 Fed. Cl. 448 (Fed. Cl. 1997). · cites it 3× “3243 (1994) (FASA), as codified at 10 U.S.C. § 2377 , by giving Centech a technical advantage for its heating coil, which allegedly is a sole source part.”
Alfa Laval Separation, Inc. v. United States, 40 Fed. Cl. 215 (Fed. Cl. 1998). “3390 (1994) (codified at 10 U.S.C. § 2377 (1994)). Pursuant to this statute, the Navy procurement officials were required (b) to the maximum extent practicable— (1) acquire commercial items or nondevelopmental items other than commercial items to meet the needs of the (3) modify…”
Analytical Graphics, Inc. v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2017). · cites it 39× “218 (2016), in a different procurement from the one referenced above, which did not present a small business set-aside issue, and with different facts presented, the undersigned determined that pursuant, to 10 U.S.C. § 2377 , the United States Army had failed to conduct a proper…”
Chromalloy San Diego Corp. v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2019). · cites it 2× “3d at 1352 ; accord 10 U.S.C. § 2377 (a)-(b) (describing the preference for commercial items).”
FlightSafety Int'l, Inc. (A.S.B.C.A. 2022). “3243 , 3391 (1994) (codified as amended at 10 U.S.C. § 2377 (b)(1) (2020), redesignated, 10 U.”
Mlinqs, LLC v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2023). “at 990–91 (citing 10 U.S.C. § 2377 (c)(2), revised on 1 Jan.”
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.