28 U.S.C. § 2501
Time for filing suit
Every claim of which the United States Court of Federal Claims has jurisdiction shall be barred unless the petition thereon is filed within six years after such claim first accrues.
Every claim under section 1497 of this title shall be barred unless the petition thereon is filed within two years after the termination of the river and harbor improvements operations on which the claim is based.
A petition on the claim of a person under legal disability or beyond the seas at the time the claim accrues may be filed within three years after the disability ceases.
A suit for the fees of an officer of the United States shall not be filed until his account for such fees has been finally acted upon, unless the Government Accountability Office fails to act within six months after receiving the account.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1,948
cases (210 in the last 5 years), 1949–2026 · leading case: Kwai Wong v. David Beebe, 732 F.3d 1030 (9th Cir. 2013).
Kwai Wong v. David Beebe, 732 F.3d 1030 (9th Cir. 2013). “Sand & Gravel did not hold 28 U.S.C. § 2501 “jurisdictional” based on the “consequential” language of the statute.”
John R. Sand & Gravel Co. v. United States, 457 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2006). “Because we conclude that JRS&G did not file its complaint within the six-year limitations period of 28 U.S.C. § 2501 , we hold that the Court of Federal Claims lacked jurisdiction.”
Bright v. United States, 603 F.3d 1273 (Fed. Cir. 2010). “Fauvergue filed a class action complaint and sought class certification prior to expiration of the six-year limitations period prescribed by 28 U.S.C. § 2501 , none of the twenty other putative class members opted in to the suit as named party plaintiffs prior to expiration of…”
Gabriel J. Martinez v. United States, 333 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2003). “See 28 U.S.C. § 2501 . The court explained that “[a] claim based on unlawful discharge or release from military service accrues on the date of discharge or release because that is the date the injury — i.”
San Carlos Apache Tribe v. United States, 639 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2011). “The government filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, arguing, inter alia, that the Tribe's claim is barred by the six-year statute of limitations set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2501 . Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss at 1.”
Fauvergue v. United States, 86 Fed. Cl. 82 (Fed. Cl. 2009). “§§ 1241-1251 (2000), this ease presents a relatively new issue in applying the United States Supreme Court’s 2008 decision demarcating as jurisdictional the United States Court of Federal Claims’ statute of limitations, 28 U.S.C. § 2501 (2000). The issue is whether putative…”
Alaska v. United States, 32 Fed. Cl. 689 (Fed. Cl. 1995). “§ 1500 deprives this court of jurisdiction, and, secondly, that the claim is also time-barred under 28 U.S.C. § 2501 . Defendant’s jurisdictional arguments are contained in an original Motion to Dismiss (June 1, 1992) as well as an Amended Motion to Dismiss (September 2,1994),…”
Jeun v. United States, 128 Fed. Cl. 203 (Fed. Cl. 2016). “Although the Tucker Act waives federal sovereign immunity and grants this court jurisdiction to hear monetary claims against the government, this court’s jurisdiction is expressly limited by 28 U.S.C. § 2501 (2012), which prescribes a six-year statute of limitations for claims…”
Young v. United States, 529 F.3d 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2008). “Young’s assertions, the Court of Federal Claims construed his complaint as a monetary request under the Tucker Act, seeking back pay for the period from his discharge until the date at which he would have become eligible for longevity retirement.”
Chambers v. United States, 417 F.3d 1218 (Fed. Cir. 2005). “Chambers’ 2003 suit in the Court of Federal Claims was, therefore, not barred by the six-year statute of limitations in 28 U.S.C. § 2501 . However, because the Court of Federal Claims correctly held that the decision of the ABCMR was supported by substantial evidence, we affirm.”
Voisin v. United States, 80 Fed. Cl. 164 (Fed. Cl. 2008). “however, did not file their takings claim within the six-year statute of limitations set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2501 (2000). For the reasons set forth herein, the court concludes that jurisdiction over this matter is absent.”
Arakaki v. United States, 62 Fed. Cl. 244 (Fed. Cl. 2004). “” 28 U.S.C. § 2501 (2000). Accrual occurs “when all events have occurred that fix the alleged liability of the Government and entitle the plaintiff to institute an action.”
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.