28 U.S.C. § 2406
Credits in actions by United States; prior disallowance
In an action by the United States against an individual, evidence supporting the defendant’s claim for a credit shall not be admitted unless he first proves that such claim has been disallowed, in whole or in part, by the Government Accountability Office, or that he has, at the time of the trial, obtained possession of vouchers not previously procurable and has been prevented from presenting such claim to the Government Accountability Office by absence from the United States or unavoidable accident.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 34
cases, 1949–1999 · leading case: National City Bank of NY v. Republic of China
National City Bank of NY v. Republic of China (1955)
“[7] *363 (a) The Court of Claims is available to foreign nationals (or their governments) on a simple condition: that the foreign national's government can be sued in its courts on claims by our citizens. [8] An American or a Chinese [9] could sue in the Court of Claims for…”
Wallace G. Frederick v. United States (1967)
“, 1953) and related cases; (2) that defendant had not made claim with the General Accounting Office as required by 28 U.S.C.A. § 2406 ; (3) that no allegations showed the defendant was owner of any cause of action for tort at the foreclosure sale, that such a cause would belong…”
Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation v. Howard B. Quinn (1969)
“Nor was jurisdiction lacking because of appellant’s failure to comply with 28 U.S.C. § 2406 . 5 That statute, by express terms, was inapplicable because at no time in the courts below did Quinn seek to introduce evidence to support his claim that he was entitled to credit.”
United States v. Frank (1962)
“It contends that the proposed counterclaim may not be pleaded at this late date; that it is insufficient as a matter of law; that the court is without jurisdiction to entertain the counterclaim; and that even assuming it may be pleaded as a set-off, 28 U.S.C. § 2406 (1958)…”
Ruppenthal v. State Ex Rel. Economic Development & Stabilization Board (1993)
“On appeal, the relevant issue was whether the United States enjoyed sovereign immunity because the guarantor failed to comply with the claims procedure provided in 28 U.S.C. § 2406 . The federal appellate court answered this issue negatively after assessing the interplay of the…”
United States v. Iron Mountain Mines, Inc. (1995)
“§ 774 (the predecessor to the present 28 U.S.C. § 2406 ), which allowed a cross-claim up to the amount of the United States’ suit.”
Lowell O. West Lumber Sales, a Corporation v. United States (1959)
“The government contends that even if it is subject to termination damages, the appellant in no event could “obtain a judgment in this proceeding in excess of the $10,000 jurisdictional limit imposed on the district courts by the Tucker Act, 28 U.”
Amerada Hess Corporation v. Department of Interior (1999)
“AHC raises 28 U.S.C. § 2406 to support the merits of its claim for offsets.”
United States v. Taylor (1972)
“United States, supra, in holding that a compulsory counterclaim against the government was not subject to the prerequisites of 28 U.S.C. § 2406 . Whether a counterclaim is compulsory or permissive largely depends on its relationship to the other party’s claim.”
United States v. Marin Rock and Asphalt Company (1969)
“Defendants must show compliance with 28 U.S.C. § 2406 and have failed to do so.”
United States v. Paddock (1951)
“§ 774 , now 28 U.S.C.A. § 2406 . Acting through various and sundry federal corporate agents, each of which was legally authorized to contract and be contracted with and to sue and be sued in its own name, the United States contracted and otherwise dealt with Globe Aircraft…”
United States v. Lashlee (1952)
“er of recoupment, which arises out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the sovereign suit, and is used to defeat or diminish recovery by the sovereign, but the institution of a suit does not warrant an affirmative judgment against the United States;…”
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.