28 U.S.C. § 1492
Congressional reference cases
Any bill, except a bill for a pension, may be referred by either House of Congress to the chief judge of the United States Court of Federal Claims for a report in conformity with section 2509 of this title.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 145
cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1949–2025 · leading case: Glidden Co. v. Zdanok, 370 U.S. 530 (1962).
Glidden Co. v. Zdanok, 370 U.S. 530 (1962). “§ 1543 to review Tariff Commission findings of unfair practices in import trade, and the congressional reference jurisdiction given the Court of Claims by 28 U. S. C. §§ 1492 and 2509. The judicial quality of the former was called into question though not resolved in Ex parte…”
Kanehl v. United States, 38 Fed. Cl. 89 (Fed. Cl. 1997). “DISCUSSION The present congressional reference case arises pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1492 (1996), which provides that a bill may be referred by either house of Congress to the chief judge of the Court of Federal Claims for a report in conformity with 28 U.”
Off. of Pers. Mgmt. v. Richmond, 496 U.S. 414 (1990). “See 28 U. S. C. §§ 1492 , 2509(c). Congress continues to employ private legislation to provide remedies in individual cases of hardship.”
Mata v. United States, 114 Fed. Cl. 736 (Fed. Cl. 2014). “Plaintiff relies on 28 U.S.C. § 1492 (a)(2) as support for the "collateral damages” he desires.”
El-Shifa Pharm. Indus. Co. v. United States, 607 F.3d 836 (D.C. Cir. 2010). “The plaintiffs brought this action in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia after the CIA denied their requests for compensation for the plant's destruction and for a retraction of the allegations that the plaintiffs were involved with terrorism.”
Binyam Mohamed v. Jeppesen Dataplan, Inc., 614 F.3d 1070 (9th Cir. 2010). “, dis- senting), Congress can refer the case to the Court of Federal Claims to make a recommendation before deciding whether to enact a private bill, see 28 U.S.C. § 1492 ; see also Banfi Prods. Corp.”
William Hohri v. United States, 782 F.2d 227 (D.C. Cir. 1986). “The “Congressional Reference Cases” provide a voluminous history of instances in which Congress has waived immunity of the United States pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1492 and 2059. See Bennett, Private Claims Acts and Congressional References, Committee on the Judiciary, 90th Cong.”
Lion Raisins, Inc. v. United States, 52 Fed. Cl. 629 (Fed. Cl. 2002). “Plaintiffs Statement of Bid Proposal Costs calls for resolution of the issue whether attorneys’ fees and other costs incurred by plaintiff in responding to a size protest filed with the Small Business Administration and an investigation for purposes of a Certificate of…”
Griswold v. United States, 61 Fed. Cl. 458 (Fed. Cl. 2004). “it appears that this claim for breach of contract against the United States, upon at least an initial inquiry, would be a claim within this Court’s jurisdiction under the Tucker Act [ 28 U.S.C. § 1492 (2000) ].” Pls.’ Mem. at 1-2.”
Land Grantors in Henderson, Union & Webster Counties v. United States, 71 Fed. Cl. 614 (Fed. Cl. 2006). “¶ 1 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1492 and 28 U.S.C. § 2509 (c)); see also S.”
Paul v. United States, 20 Cl. Ct. 236 (Ct. Cl. 1990). “The House that refers a bill for a report pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1492 and 2509 cannot in the resolution to refer, or in its report on the resolution alter the statutory standards.”
INSLAW, Inc. v. United States, 35 Fed. Cl. 295 (Fed. Cl. 1996). “This case was *298 assigned to the court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1492 (1994), which provides: “Any bill, except a bill for a pension, may be referred by either House of Congress to the chief judge of the United States Court of Federal Claims for a report in conformity with…”
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.