28 U.S.C. § 1502
Treaty cases
Except as otherwise provided by Act of Congress, the United States Court of Federal Claims shall not have jurisdiction of any claim against the United States growing out of or dependent upon any treaty entered into with foreign nations.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 80
cases (21 in the last 5 years), 1956–2026 · leading case: Hughes Aircraft Co. v. United States, 209 Ct. Cl. 446 (Ct. Cl. 1976).
Hughes Aircraft Co. v. United States, 209 Ct. Cl. 446 (Ct. Cl. 1976). “so as to preclude this court’s jurisdiction by virtue of 28 U.S.C. § 1502 ; (3) whether the Skynet II program, insofar as U.”
Adarbe v. United States, 58 Fed. Cl. 707 (Fed. Cl. 2003). “Whether this court has jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ 0LA-related claims turns on the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1502 , which prohibits this court from exercising jurisdiction over “any claim against the United States growing out of or dependent upon any treaty entered into with…”
Dames & Moore v. Regan, 453 U.S. 654 (1981). “It has been contended that the "treaty exception" to the jurisdiction of the Court of Claims, 28 U. S. C. § 1502 , might preclude the Court of Claims from exercising jurisdiction over any takings claim the petitioner might bring.”
Per Aarsleff A/S v. United States, 121 Fed. Cl. 603 (Fed. Cl. 2015). “4; inapplicability of bar on jurisdiction over actions based on treaty; 28 U.S.C. § 1502 ; mistake in a critical eligibility criterion; latent defect discovered by procuring agency prior to award but not corrected; considerations affecting equitable relief OPINION AND ORDER 1…”
De Archibold v. United States, 57 Fed. Cl. 29 (Fed. Cl. 2003). “” 28 U.S.C. § 1502 (1992). The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that “[section 1502’s] applicability is limited to those cases relying so heavily on a treaty that, but for the treaty, the plaintiffs claim would not exist.”
Nitol v. United States, 7 Cl. Ct. 405 (Ct. Cl. 1985). “Plaintiffs’ claims in cause of action III are based upon an alleged failure of the United States to discharge the obligations assumed in the Trusteeship Agreement. Congress has declared that the United States Claims Court shall not have jurisdiction of any claim against the…”
Juda v. United States, 6 Cl. Ct. 441 (Ct. Cl. 1984). “breach of trust are not based on a statute expressly waiving sovereign immunity or on other congressional action that mandates money damages; (3) an implied-in-fact contract that creates a trust obligation on the United States arises only from management of “trust” property or…”
Peter v. United States, 6 Cl. Ct. 768 (Ct. Cl. 1984). “Claims in count III of the complaint are based upon an alleged failure of the United States to comply with obligations assumed in the Trusteeship Agreement, which is seen by plaintiffs as a bilateral contract between the United States and the Security Council of the United…”
Laura Hebah, Adm'x, in the Matter of the Est. of Robert Hebah, Deceased v. The United States, 428 F.2d 1334 (Ct. Cl. 1970). “) § 259 and then 28 U.S.C. § 1502 (1948 ed.) ( 62 Stat. 869 , 942).”
Global Freight Sys. Co. W.L.L. v. United States, 130 Fed. Cl. 780 (Fed. Cl. 2017). “*782 Fifth Amendment Taking; Breach of Contract; Third-Party Beneficiary; 28 U.S.C. § 1502 ; Discovery. OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT WILLIAMS, Judge.”
Johns-Manville Corp. & Johns-Manville Sales Corp. v. The United States, 855 F.2d 1556 (Fed. Cir. 1988). “§ 1501 , and on suits based on treaties, now 28 U.S.C. § 1502 . The codifiers have not overlooked section 1500, but how much consideration by Congress it really has received since 1868 is unclear.”
Greenland Contractors I/S v. United States, 131 Fed. Cl. 216 (Fed. Cl. 2017). “at 621-22 (explaining that the court has jurisdiction over the protesters’ claims and that the “[tjreaty [b]ar” under 28 U.S.C. § 1502 does not apply even though the solicitation implements the United States’ executive agreements with Denmark).”
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.