10 U.S.C. § 2501
Renumbered § 4811]
[renumbered]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3
cases, 1995–2003 · leading case: Barney v. United States, 57 Fed. Cl. 76 (Fed. Cl. 2003).
Barney v. United States, 57 Fed. Cl. 76 (Fed. Cl. 2003). “The court concludes that all of the plaintiffs claims — unlawful discharge, unpaid wages, and disability retirement — were barred by the six year limitation contained in 10 U.S.C. § 2501 . Equitable Tolling Plaintiff makes a passing reference in his response to the defendant’s…”
Compubahn, Inc. v. United States, 33 Fed. Cl. 677 (Fed. Cl. 1995). “10 U.S.C. § 2501 (a)(3) (1992). . Plaintiff derived this requirement from a letter it received from DARPA dated March 22, 1994, stating that each of the over 2,450 proposals received was evaluated by at least two evaluators.”
United States v. Clark Cnty., Indiana, 234 F. Supp. 2d 934 (S.D. Ind. 2002). “193(b) (as noted with 10 U.S.C. § 2501 ). Prior to the passage of the Arms Act, the United States had contracted with a corporation known as ICI Americas, Inc.”
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.