U.S. Code » Title 28 » Part PART VI— PARTICULAR PROCEEDINGS › Chapter CHAPTER 165— UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS PROCEDURE

28 U.S.C. § 2515

New trial; stay of judgment

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 28 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) The United States Court of Federal Claims may grant a plaintiff a new trial on any ground established by rules of common law or equity applicable as between private parties.(b) Such court, at any time while any suit is pending before it, or after proceedings for review have been instituted, or within two years after the final disposition of the suit, may grant the United States a new trial and stay the payment of any judgment upon satisfactory evidence, cumulative or otherwise, that any fraud, wrong, or injustice has been done the United States.(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 978; Pub. L. 97–164, title I, § 139(j)(2), Apr. 2, 1982, 96 Stat. 43; Pub. L. 102–572, title IX, § 902(a)(1), Oct. 29, 1992, 106 Stat. 4516.)Historical and Revision Notes

Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §§ 281 and 282 (Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, §§ 174, 175, 36 Stat. 1141).

Words “but until an order is made staying the payment of a judgment, the same shall be payable and paid as on March 3, 1911, was provided by law,” in section 282 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., were omitted as surplusage.

Changes were made in phraseology.

Editorial NotesAmendments

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

1982—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 97–164 substituted “United States Claims Court” for “Court of Claims”.

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 14 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1952–2025 · leading case: United States v. Barbara J. Curzi
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
United States v. Barbara J. Curzi (1989) ca1 “But we were not dealing there with the Constitution, and our decision not to levy the sanction of dismissal for a violation of 28 U.S.C. § 2515 in no way presaged an extension of the Leon principle to warrantless conduct such as transpired in this case.”
Oenga v. United States (2010) uscfc “Under 28 U.S.C. § 2515 or Alaska Stat. § 09.10.”
Oenga v. United States (2010) uscfc “Under 28 U.S.C. § 2515 or Alaska Stat. § 09.10.”
State v. Gilmore (1996) wis “We therefore reject the defendant's argument that language in 28 U.S.C. § 2515 is applicable to this case.”
Badowski v. United States (1958) cc · cites it 2× “This right is given it by 28 U.S.C. § 2515 (b), which reads: "Such court, at any time while any suit is pending before it, or after proceedings for review have been instituted, or within two years after the final disposition of the suit, may grant the United States a new trial…”
United States v. Brunner (1952) ca6 “28 U.S.C.A. § 2515 (b) •which provides that the court may grant the United States a new trial and stay the payment of any judgment within two years after the final disposition of the suit, in the case of fraud, wrong or injustice to the United States, and the United States…”
Roberson v. United States (1954) cc · cites it 2× “The Circuit Court pointed out that although Brunner's conviction had been properly reversed on the ground that his wife's testimony had been improperly admitted and could not support the judgment *863 of conviction, it was both proper and necessary for the District Court to…”
Hughes Aircraft Co. v. United States (1988) cc · cites it 2× “On January 27, 1988, defendant filed a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2515 (b) for a new trial on the issue of validity of the Williams patent.”
deRochemont v. United States (1991) cc “See also 28 U.S.C. § 2515 (b) (Claims Court may grant the United States a new trial and stay the payment of any judgment upon a showing that there has been a fraud, wrong, or injustice done to the United States).”
In re United States Attorney for Orders Pursuant to Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control & Safe Streets Act of 1968 (1992) nyed “Of course, the ex parte nature of the proceeding precludes pre-authorization review at the behest of the subject of the interception.”
Mooney v. United States (2020) cafc · cites it 2× “In addition, the Mooneys assert that the Claims Court had jurisdiction over their claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2515 (a), which states that “[t]he United States Court of Federal Claims may grant a plaintiff a new trial on any ground established by rules of common law or equity…”
In Re US Attorney (1992) nyed “The exhaustion of this process would not preclude an application to another district court judge if the initial application was ultimately denied. Of course, the ex parte nature of the proceeding precludes pre-authorization review at the behest of the subject of the interception.”
Show all 14 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.