28 U.S.C. § 1929
Extraordinary expenses not expressly authorized
Where the ministerial officers of the United States incur extraordinary expense in executing Acts of Congress, the payment of which is not specifically provided for, the Attorney General may allow the payment thereof.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1987–2024 · leading case: Glen Bootay v. KBR Inc
Glen Bootay v. KBR Inc (2011)
“) Additionally, the superseding memorandum opinion granted an immediate appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1929 (b). On June 22, 2011, counsel for Bootay filed a letter of purported supplemental authority pursuant to Fed.”
Joseph v. Edeskuty & Associates v. Jacksonville Kraft Paper Co. (1988)
“Edeskuty’s request for costs and attorneys’ fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1929 is denied; and 4. Edeskuty’s motion for partial summary judgment on its claim for breach of contract is granted in the amount of $83,-065.”
Smith v. Williams (2023)
“22 On March 18, 2023, Defendant filed the instant motion to certify the 12(b)(6) Order for immediate appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1929 (b).23 On April 4, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff’s unopposed motion to continue the submission date on the instant motion.”
WILLIAM THOMAS, and all 1,923 individuals identified in the Thomas FTCA administrative Complaint v. United States (2019)
“Under § 1292(b), a district court may certify an order for immediate appeal upon finding that it “involves a controlling question of law as to which there is a substantial ground for difference of opinion and that an immediate appeal … may materially advance the ultimate…”
JAN BURGESS, and all 2,959 individuals identified in the Burgess FTCA Administrative Complaint v. United States (2019)
“Under § 1292(b), a district court may certify an order for immediate appeal upon finding that it “involves a controlling question of law as to which there is a substantial ground for difference of opinion and that an immediate appeal … may materially advance the ultimate…”
Corning Incorporated v. Wilson Wolf Manufacturing Corporation (2023)
“293, 306, 307) and a motion for certification under 28 U.S.C. § 1929 (b) (Doc. No. 294). Wilson Wolf urged Corning to refrain from filing the present motion to allow the Court to address Wilson Wolf’s motion for certification and requests for leave to file motions for…”
A.B., a minor, by and through his guardian JEN TURNER v. GOOGLE LLC (2024)
“Defendants now ask the Court to certify the order denying their 18 motion to dismiss for interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1929 (b). For the following reasons, 19 defendants’ motion is denied.”
Holley v. CITY OF ROANOKE, ALABAMA (2001)
“Appeals Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1929 (a): Pursuant to this statute, appeals are permitted from orders “granting, continuing, modifying, refusing or dissolving injunctions or refusing to dissolve or modify injunctions .”
Petrie v. United Bank of Skyline, National Ass'n (1987)
“We next turn to defendant’s Motion Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1929 and Rule 11 Fed.R.Civ.P.”
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.