28 U.S.C. § 2511
Accounts of officers, agents or contractors
Notice of suit under section 1494 of this title shall be given to the Attorney General, to the Comptroller General, and to the head of the department requested to settle the account in question.
The judgment of the United States Court of Federal Claims in such suit shall be conclusive upon the parties, and payment of the amount found due shall discharge the obligation.
The transcript of such judgment, filed in the clerk’s office of any district court, shall be entered upon the records, and shall be enforceable as other judgments.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11
cases, 1973–2018 · leading case: Eric Noel v. Brian C. Hall Sandra A. Hall, Fka Sandra Johnson, and Gabrielle S. Lennartz Herb Weisser Michelle A. Mercha
Eric Noel v. Brian C. Hall Sandra A. Hall, Fka Sandra Johnson, and Gabrielle S. Lennartz Herb Weisser Michelle A. Mercha (2003)
“Noel made ten claims against the Halls: (1) violation of federal wiretap law, 28 U.S.C. § 2511 ; (2) violation of Oregon wiretap laws, Or.”
DirecTV, Inc. v. Webb (2008)
“§ 605 (a), fifty-seven acts of signal interception in violation of 28 U.S.C. § 2511 (l)(a), and one act of access card modification in violation of 47 U.”
Thompson v. Dulaney (1993)
“See 28 U.S.C. § 2511 (l)(b)-(d) (1988). 13 • *1548 As to the elements regarding knowledge that the material came from an illegal wiretap, the Court concludes that there are questions of fact regarding these elements.”
United States v. Michael William Clegg (1975)
“We decline the invitation to import the Fourth Amendment into 28 U.S.C. § 2511 (a), a section of the Code which authorizes limited monitoring by private persons — real and corporate.”
Aldrich v. Ruano (2013)
“See 28 U.S.C. § 2511 (l)(a). Section 2520(a) of Title 18 provides for a private cause of action for civil damages for violations of § 2511.”
Rainsy v. Facebook, Inc. (2018)
“" 28 U.S.C. § 2511 (2)(g). By its own language, this exception only applies to intercepting or accessing and not to disclosing communications.”
United States v. Hines (1983)
“the officers acted “under color of law,” 28 U.S.C. § 2511 (2)(c), or “under the direction of a law enforcement officer,” Fla.”
Cross v. State (1973)
“Title 28 U.S.C.A. § 2511 (2) (c) (d) specifically provides that if one of the persons acts under color of law and is a party to the conversation, it is not unlawful for him to intercept such communication.”
United States v. Rittweger (2003)
“See 28 U.S.C. § 2511 (2)(d). Under the consent exception, there can be no violation of Title III when a telephone call is intercepted if “one of the parties to the communication has given prior to consent to such interception,” unless the intercep *354 tion is for a criminal or…”
United States v. Sneed (2002)
“The government videotaped the four controlled buys that were the subject of Counts 5 through 8 of the indictment.”
Directv, Inc. v. Webb (2008)
“§ 605 (a), fifty-seven acts of signal interception in violation of 28 U.S.C. § 2511 (1)(a), and one act of access card modification in violation of 47 U.”
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.