U.S. Code » Title 28 » Part PART IV— JURISDICTION AND VENUE › Chapter CHAPTER 91— UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS

28 U.S.C. § 1494

Accounts of officers, agents or contractors

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 28 CasesGoogle Scholar
The United States Court of Federal Claims shall have jurisdiction to determine the amount, if any, due to or from the United States by reason of any unsettled account of any officer or agent of, or contractor with, the United States, or a guarantor, surety or personal representative of any such officer, agent or contractor, and to render judgment thereof,11 So in original. Probably should be “thereon,”. where—(1) claimant or the person he represents has applied to the proper department of the Government for settlement of the account;(2) three years have elapsed from the date of such application without settlement; and(3) no suit upon the same has been brought by the United States.(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 941; July 28, 1953, ch. 253, § 9, 67 Stat. 226; Sept. 3, 1954, ch. 1263, § 44(c), 68 Stat. 1242; Pub. L. 97–164, title I, § 133(c)(1), Apr. 2, 1982, 96 Stat. 40; Pub. L. 102–572, title IX, § 902(a)(1), Oct. 29, 1992, 106 Stat. 4516.)Historical and Revision Notes

Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., § 287 (Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, § 180, 36 Stat. 1141; Feb. 13, 1925, ch. 229, § 3, 43 Stat. 939).

Only the jurisdictional provisions of section 287 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., are contained in this section. The procedural provisions are incorporated in section 2511 of this title.

Changes were made in phraseology.

Editorial NotesAmendments

1992—Pub. L. 102–572 substituted “United States Court of Federal Claims” for “United States Claims Court”.

1982—Pub. L. 97–164 substituted “United States Claims Court” for “Court of Claims”.

1954—Act Sept. 3, 1954, struck out “United States” from name of Court of Claims.

1953—Act July 28, 1953, substituted “United States Court of Claims” for “Court of Claims”, inserted “to or from” after “due”, and inserted “and to render judgment thereon,”.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 1992 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 102–572 effective Oct. 29, 1992, see section 911 of Pub. L. 102–572, set out as a note under section 171 of this title.

Effective Date of 1982 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 97–164 effective Oct. 1, 1982, see section 402 of Pub. L. 97–164, set out as a note under section 171 of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 25 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1961–2025 · leading case: Roberson v. United States, 115 Fed. Cl. 234 (Fed. Cl. 2014).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Roberson v. United States, 115 Fed. Cl. 234 (Fed. Cl. 2014). · cites it 5× “§ 1498 (b), a right to an accounting under 28 U.S.C. § 1494 , violations of Title V of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, 5 U.”
Watson v. United States, 86 Fed. Cl. 399 (Fed. Cl. 2009). · cites it 11× “In that case, referred to herein as Watson I, Plaintiff sought to establish jurisdiction in this Court through 28 U.S.C. § 1494 (relating to the adjudication of unsettled accounts of officers or agents of, or contractors with, the United States).”
Striplin v. United States, 100 Fed. Cl. 493 (Fed. Cl. 2011). · cites it 14× “§ 1491 and 28 U.S.C. § 1494 . On May 2, 2011, the court granted Plaintiff’s April 30,2011 Motion to file a First Amended Complaint.”
United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392 (1976). “" 5 The amici acknowledge that it is conceivable that the respondents will be able to obtain reclassification for the future through the mandamus action they instituted in 1971.”
Bianchi v. United States, 68 Fed. Cl. 442 (Fed. Cl. 2005). · cites it 11× “Bianchi and the government is unsettled *450 and that 28 U.S.C. § 1494 (2000) provides this court with jurisdiction over unsettled accounts.”
Glidden Co. v. Zdanok, 370 U.S. 530 (1962). · cites it 2× “[38] 28 U. S. C. § 1494 (contractors or their sureties); 28 U.”
Jeremiah Harris v. United States, 113 Fed. Cl. 290 (Fed. Cl. 2013). “The court also lacks jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1494 because, even if the court construes plaintiff’s filing of his Form 1040X as a request to settle an account, plaintiff has not satisfied the statutorily required three-year waiting period.”
Loveladies Harbor, Inc. & Loveladies Harbor, Unit D, Inc. v. United States, 27 F.3d 1545 (Fed. Cir. 1994). “The jurisdictional allegations are limited to the Fifth Amendment, and to § 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act 21 and 28 U.S.C. § 1494 , the Tucker Act. There are only two counts.”
Watson v. United States, 240 F. App'x 410 (Fed. Cir. 2007). · cites it 3× “Watson’s 28 U.S.C. § 1494 claim. The Court of Federal Claims also dismissed for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted Mr.”
O'Brien Gear & Mach. Co. v. United States, 219 Ct. Cl. 187 (Ct. Cl. 1979). · cites it 2× “United States, supra, was a suit by a Government officer for an accounting under the predecessor of present 28 U.S.C. § 1494 , a form of jurisdiction first entrusted to the Court of Claims by the Tucker Act of March 3, 1887, ch.”
Luckenbach S.S. Co., Inc. v. United States, 312 F.2d 545 (2d Cir. 1963). “That congressional policy is designed to permit exactly the kind of determination which the defendant resists in the present case is indicated by 28 U.S.C. § 1494 under which the plaintiff originally brought the present claim.”
Luckenbach S.S. Co., Inc. v. United States, 292 F.2d 913 (Ct. Cl. 1961). · cites it 5× “This is an action, under 28 U.S.C. § 1494 , for a determination by this court of the amount, if any, due from the plaintiff to the United States in connection with the chartering of a number of Government-owned vessels to the plaintiff during the period from September 24, 1946…”
Show all 25 citing cases →
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.