U.S. Code » Title 10 » Subtitle Subtitle A— General Military Law › Part PART IV— SERVICE, SUPPLY, AND PROPERTY › Chapter CHAPTER 141— MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS RELATING TO PROPERTY

10 U.S.C. § 2405

Repealed. Pub. L. 105–85, div. A, title VIII, § 810(a)(1), Nov. 18, 1997, 111 Stat. 1839]

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

[repealed]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 1992–2014 · leading case: Bath Iron Works Corp. v. United States, 20 F.3d 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Bath Iron Works Corp. v. United States, 20 F.3d 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1994). · cites it 14× “114 (1992), 1 denying its motion to dismiss Bath Iron Works Corporation’s (BIWs) claims for price adjustments under two shipbuilding contracts either for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, or, alternatively, for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted,…”
Bath Iron Works Corp. v. United States, 27 Fed. Cl. 114 (Fed. Cl. 1992). · cites it 35× “Defendant moved to dismiss the complaints for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, or, alternatively, for failure to state a claim because plaintiff failed to satisfy the time limitations out *116 lined in 10 U.S.C. § 2405 for commencing an adjustment claim with the contracting…”
Peterson Builders, Inc. v. United States, 26 Cl. Ct. 1227 (Ct. Cl. 1992). · cites it 7× “In the motion for reconsideration, defendant avers that the 18-month time bar of 10 U.S.C. § 2405 (1988) operates to bar Count IV on jurisdictional grounds.”
Resource Investments, Inc. & Land Recovery, Inc. v. United States, 114 Fed. Cl. 639 (Fed. Cl. 2014). “In contrast, the issues before the federal district court were the constitutionality and applicability of 10 U.S.C. § 2405 , under which the Navy had sought to limit the ability of shipbuilders to raise contract claims.”
McDermott Inc. v. United States, 30 Fed. Cl. 332 (Fed. Cl. 1994). · cites it 7× “These references include: the obligation to deliver four SWATH vessels [T-AGOS 19, T-AGOS 20, T-AGOS 21 and T-AGOS 22], entitlement to adjustment in the contract price, limitations imposed by 10 U.S.C. § 2405 , notice to the Navy of constructive changes, rejection of the notice,…”
Resource Investments v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2014). “In contrast, the issues before the federal district court were the constitutionality and applicability of 10 U.S.C. § 2405 , under which the Navy had sought to limit the ability of shipbuilders to raise contract claims.”
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.