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

28 U.S.C. § 2517

Payment of judgments

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 28 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Except as provided by chapter 71 of title 41, every final judgment rendered by the United States Court of Federal Claims against the United States shall be paid out of any general appropriation therefor, on presentation to the Secretary of the Treasury of a certification of the judgment by the clerk and chief judge of the court.(b) Payment of any such judgment and of interest thereon shall be a full discharge to the United States of all claims and demands arising out of the matters involved in the case or controversy, unless the judgment is designated a partial judgment, in which event only the matters described therein shall be discharged.(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 979; Pub. L. 95–563, § 14(e), (f), Nov. 1, 1978, 92 Stat. 2390; Pub. L. 97–164, title I, § 139(k), Apr. 2, 1982, 96 Stat. 43; Pub. L. 102–572, title IX, § 902(a)(1), Oct. 29, 1992, 106 Stat. 4516; Pub. L. 104–316, title II, § 202(l), Oct. 19, 1996, 110 Stat. 3843; Pub. L. 111–350, § 5(g)(11), Jan. 4, 2011, 124 Stat. 3848.)Historical and Revision Notes

Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., § 285, and sections 225, 228, of title 31, U.S.C., 1940 ed., Money and Finance, (R.S. §§ 236, 1089; Feb. 18, 1904, ch. 160, § 1, 33 Stat. 41; Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, § 178, 36 Stat. 1141; June 10, 1921, ch. 18, §§ 304, 305, 42 Stat. 24; Feb. 13, 1925, ch. 229, § 3(c), 43 Stat. 939).

Section consolidates section 285 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., and sections 225 and 228 of title 31, U.S.C., 1940 ed., Money and Finance.

Words “chief judge” were substituted for “the chief justice, or, in his absence, by the presiding judge of said court” in section 225 of title 31, U.S.C., 1940 ed., Money and Finance, in conformity with chapter 7 of this title.

Words “or, on review, by the Supreme Court, where the same are affirmed in favor of the claimant” in section 225 of title 31, U.S.C., 1940 ed., were omitted as unnecessary.

Provisions of section 228 of title 31, U.S.C., 1940 ed., for payment of district court judgments are incorporated in section 2414 of this title.

Changes were made in phraseology.

Editorial NotesAmendments

2011—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 111–350 substituted “chapter 71 of title 41” for “the Contract Disputes Act of 1978”.

1996—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 104–316 substituted “Secretary of the Treasury” for “General Accounting Office”.

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, § 139(k)(1), substituted “United States Claims Court” for “Court of Claims”.

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 97–164, § 139(k)(2), struck out the comma after “shall be discharged” thereby correcting a technical error in the directory language in Pub. L. 95–563 which placed both a comma and a period after “shall be discharged”.

1978—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 95–563, § 14(e), inserted Contract Disputes Act of 1978 exception.

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 95–563, § 14(f), inserted provision relating to discharge of partial judgments.

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.

Effective Date of 1978 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 95–563 effective with respect to contracts entered into 120 days after Nov. 1, 1978, and, at the election of the contractor, with respect to any claim pending at such time before the contracting officer or initiated thereafter, see section 16 of Pub. L. 95–563, Nov. 1, 1978, 92 Stat. 2391, formerly set out as an Effective Date note under section 601 of former Title 41, Public Contracts.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 112 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1954–2026 · leading case: Slattery v. United States
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Slattery v. United States (2011) cafc · cites it 14× “This provision, now codified as amended at 28 U.S.C. § 2517 (a), removed the need for a special congressional appropriation to pay each individual judgment.”
Wolfchild v. United States (2011) uscfc · cites it 12× “§§ 1401 - *78 08, apply to a money judgment that is entered and subject to payment under 28 U.S.C. § 2517 and 31 U.S.C. § 1304 ? 2) If Chapter 16 of Title 26 does not apply to such a money judgment, can and should a distribution plan nonetheless follow and reflect the plan…”
Hughes Aircraft Co. v. United States (1976) cc · cites it 5× “, was a non-appropriated fund activity as to which this court lacks jurisdiction by virtue of 28 U.S.C. § 2517 ; and (4) whether the omission from the 1968 Foreign Military Sales Act (FMSA), 22 U.”
United States v. General Electric Corporation (1984) cafc · cites it 4× “The non-appropriated funds doctrine, as it has developed judicially, was based on 28 U.S.C. § 2517 , as previously enacted, which required that judgments of the Court of Claims be paid only from appropriated funds.”
Moda Health Plan, Inc. v. United States (2018) cafc · cites it 2× “§ 1304 (a); see also 28 U.S.C. §2517 (“Ex- cept as provided by chapter 71 of title 41, every final judgment rendered by the United States Court of Federal Claims against the United States shall be paid out of any general appropriation therefor.”
McCarthy v. United States (1982) cc · cites it 4× “28 U.S.C. § 2517 . Too sweeping conclusions cannot be drawn from this in view of the fact that our judgments, when awarded against the United States, are normally payable not from appropriations to maintain the agency that incurred the liability, but from appropriations made for…”
Jimmie Ann Taylor, Ladell Vasicek, Noma Chriss, Martha Cole, and Sara M. McCarthy v. United States (2002) cafc “2001) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2517 (2000)). Hence, the Tucker Act generally does not provide the Court of Federal Claims with jurisdiction over claims against NAFIs such as AAFES.”
Alabama Power Co. v. United States Department of Energy (2002) ca11 · cites it 2× “and the judgment is payable under [a variety of other statutes, including 28 U.S.C. § 2517 ].” 31 U.S.C. § 1304 (a).”
Home Savings of America v. United States (2005) uscfc · cites it 4× “Plaintiffs point out that 28 U.S.C. § 2517 (2000), the statute governing when payment from the federal government should be made on a judgment, allows for payment of partial judgments.”
American Savings Bank, F.A. v. United States (2008) uscfc · cites it 5× “DISCUSSION Plaintiffs assert that this Court is bound by the Federal Circuit’s affirmance of the Note Forbearance award and, therefore, may now enter a partial final judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 2517 . PI. Br. 5. Plaintiffs further assert that justice demands this result.”
Stockton East Water District v. United States (2015) uscfc · cites it 5× “OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL FINAL JUDGMENT RCFC 54(b); 28 U.S.C. § 2517 ; Partial Final Judgment KAPLAN, Judge.”
Furash & Company v. United States (2001) cafc · cites it 2× “28 U.S.C. § 2517 . Based on that requirement, it has been held that absent some specific jurisdictional provision to the contrary the Court of Federal Claims lacks jurisdiction over actions in which appropriated funds cannot be used to pay any resulting judgment.”
Show all 112 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.