28 U.S.C. § 1503
Set-offs
The United States Court of Federal Claims shall have jurisdiction to render judgment upon any set-off or demand by the United States against any plaintiff in such court.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 111
cases (9 in the last 5 years), 1953–2026 · leading case: The Sharman Co., Inc. v. United States, 2 F.3d 1564 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The Sharman Co., Inc. v. United States, 2 F.3d 1564 (Fed. Cir. 1993). “The specific jurisdictional requirements of the CDA control over broad jurisdictional statutes, such as 28 U.S.C. § 1503 (1988) and 28 U.S.C. § 2508 (1988), granting the Claims Court jurisdiction over government claims in cases where the court has jurisdiction over the…”
Keene Corp. v. United States, 508 U.S. 200 (1993). “See 28 U. S. C. §§ 1503 , 1508. [3] "At the present time, therefore, the only claim for just compensation pending in a court is that stated in the plaintiffs' petition in this court.”
Jankowitz v. United States, 209 Ct. Cl. 489 (Ct. Cl. 1976). “Defendant invokes our jurisdiction of its counterclaims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1503 (1970). At all relevant times prior to March 28,1972, plaintiff was employed as an appraiser, GS-ll, step 7, $15,973 per annum, in the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), Department of Housing…”
Martin J. Simko Constr., Inc. v. The United States, 852 F.2d 540 (Fed. Cir. 1988). “The government asserted counterclaims alleging fraud, invoking the Claims Court’s counterclaim jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1503 and 2508 (1982). The government based its counterclaims on two statutes: 1) the False Claims Act, 31 U.”
Barrett Refining Corp. v. United States, 242 F.3d 1055 (Fed. Cir. 2001). “The government concedes as much, identifying the basis of its claim as the equitable theory of ex aequo et bono and stating that it arises in this case because of a mistake of law.”
Rda Constr. Corp. v. United States, 132 Fed. Cl. 732 (Fed. Cl. 2017). “§ 1491 (a)(2); United States Court of Federal Claims’ Jurisdiction to Adjudicate Government Set-Offs, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1503 ,2608. POST TRIAL MEMORANDUM OPINION AND FINAL ORDER SUSAN G.”
Glidden Co. v. Zdanok, 370 U.S. 530 (1962). “765 , now 28 U. S. C. § 1503 . See also 18 Stat. 481 (1875), as amended, 31 U.”
Medina Constr., Ltd. v. United States, 43 Fed. Cl. 537 (Fed. Cl. 1999). “Only if there exists a suit filed by a contractor over which this Court has jurisdiction can the government bring a fraud claim before this Court by way of counterclaims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1503 , 2508. Cherry Cotton Mills, Inc.”
United States of Am., Libelant-Appellant v. Eastport S.S. Corp., 255 F.2d 795 (2d Cir. 1958). “Jurisdiction over the latter is conferred by 28 U.S.C. § 1503 . And, the power of the Court of Claims to hear the issues raised by Eastport’s petition may not be chal *803 lenged in this suit.”
Shippen v. United States, 228 Ct. Cl. 137 (Ct. Cl. 1981). “536, 539 (1946), that the purpose of the predecessor to 28 U.S.C. § 1503 was "to permit the Government, when sued in the Court of Claims, to have determined in a single suit all questions which involved mutual obligations between the Government and a claimant against it.”
Joseph Morton Co. v. United States, 3 Cl. Ct. 780 (Ct. Cl. 1983). “First, plaintiff treats the opinion of July 12, 1983 as, in effect, dismissing its Claims Court complaint and urges that no counterclaim may be filed absent an extant complaint in this court.”
Algonac Mfg. Co. v. United States, 192 Ct. Cl. 649 (Ct. Cl. 1970). “28 U.S.C. § 1503 (1964) states: The Court of Claims shall have jurisdiction to render judgment upon any set-off or demand by the United States against any plaintiff in such court.”
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.