U.S. Code » Title 28 » Part PART I— ORGANIZATION OF COURTS › Chapter CHAPTER 7— UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS

28 U.S.C. § 174

Assignment of judges; decisions

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 28 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) The judicial power of the United States Court of Federal Claims with respect to any action, suit, or proceeding, except congressional reference cases, shall be exercised by a single judge, who may preside alone and hold a regular or special session of court at the same time other sessions are held by other judges.(b) All decisions of the Court of Federal Claims shall be preserved and open to inspection.(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 898; Pub. L. 97–164, title I, § 105(a), Apr. 2, 1982, 96 Stat. 27; Pub. L. 102–572, title IX, § 902(a), Oct. 29, 1992, 106 Stat. 4516.)Historical and Revision Notes

Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., § 243 (Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, § 138, 36 Stat. 1136).

This section is based on the first sentence of section 243 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed. The remainder of said section is incorporated in section 175 of this title.

Words “the seat of government” were substituted for “the city of Washington” to conform to similar language respecting the Supreme Court. (See section 2 of this title.)

Words “to be fixed by rule of court” were added to provide greater flexibility in administering the business of the court. For similar provisions covering the district courts, see section 138 of this title.

Word “term” was substituted for “session” for uniformity.

Minor changes were made in phraseology.

Editorial NotesAmendments

1992—Pub. L. 102–572 substituted “United States Court of Federal Claims” for “United States Claims Court” in subsec. (a) and “Court of Federal Claims” for “Claims Court” in subsec. (b).

1982—Pub. L. 97–164 amended section generally, substituting provisions relating to assignment of judges (formerly contained in section 175) for provisions relating to terms of court. See section 173 of this title.

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 16 cases, 1983–2019 · leading case: Kevin Brott v. United States
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Kevin Brott v. United States (2017) ca6 · cites it 2× “Congress’s conditional waiver of sovereign immunity from suits for money damages against the government also includes the requirement that claims brought in the Court of Federal Claims, or under the Little Tucker Act, shall be tried without a jury.”
Jackson v. Onondaga County (2008) nynd “8 (Here, I note that Plaintiffs’ Complaint contains a verification pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 174 9 ) In any event, to be sufficient to create a factual issue for purposes of a summary judgment motion, an affidavit must, among other things, not be conclusory.”
Synergy Solutions, Inc. v. United States (2017) uscfc “132, 136 (2014), including the records maintained by the Court of Federal Claims, 28 U.S.C. § 174 (b) (2012); Pratt & Whitney Canada Inc.”
Penzel Constr. Co. v. Jackson R-2 Sch. Dist., Warner-Nease-Bost Architects & Henthorn, Sandmeyer & Co. (2017) moctapp “See 28 U.S.C. § 174 (a). Whenever there are no "equitable adjustments" to be made for the plaintiff's own errors, however, the calculation using the TCM or the modified TCM should reach the same result.”
Pueblo of Laguna v. United States (2004) uscfc “For example, in 28 U.S.C. § 174 (2000), Congress unambiguously indicated that this court exercises “judicial power,” and, in 28 U.”
In re Klitsch (2018) pamb “The more frequently utilized alternative is signing an unsworn declaration under 28 U.S.C. § 174 . If it is not so verified or signed with an unsworn declaration, then clearly the applicable rule has been violated.”
DNC Parks & Resorts at Yosemite, Inc. v. United States (2016) uscfc “268, 272 (1988) (explaining that the right of public access applies to records in criminal, as well as civil, adjudicatory proceedings); 28 U.S.C. § 174 (b) (providing that “all decisions of the Court of Federal Claims shall be preserved and open to inspection”).”
Miller-Holzwarth, Inc. v. United States (1999) uscfc “” 28 U.S.C. § 174 (1994). Discretion is afforded the trial court to determine whether the circumstances warrant overcoming the common law right of public access to judicial records; however, “that discretion is circumscribed by the presumption that the public shall have access…”
Roman-Perez v. Operating Partners Co. (In re Roman-Perez) (2015) prb “Please take judicial notice of Mr. Juan M. Suarez Cobo’s motions where [sic ] all were sent to a prior attorney that had requested withdrawal months before and even though such request had been granted by the court.”
International Electronics Corp. v. United State (1983) cc “27 (to be codified in 28 U.S.C. § 174 ). Therefore, an interlocutory ruling of the Court of Claims in a case still pending is not, strictly speaking, “precedent.”
Concepcion-Navedo v. Putnam LAC Holding, LLC (2015) prd “The related filings also before us are defendant PFPR-2’s Opposition to Remand with an Exhibit Declaration Under Penalty of Perjury Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 174 filed on June 16, 2014 (D.”
Torres Advanced Enterprise Solutions, LLC v. United States (2017) uscfc “132, 136 (2014), including the records maintained by the United States Court of Federal Claims (“Court of Federal Claims”), 28 U.S.C. § 174 (b) (2012); Pratt & Whitney Canada Inc.”
Show all 16 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.