28 U.S.C. § 2677
Compromise
The Attorney General or his designee may arbitrate, compromise, or settle any claim cognizable under section 1346(b) of this title, after the commencement of an action thereon.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 34
cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1950–2025 · leading case: Hendrickson v. United States, 791 F.3d 354 (2d Cir. 2015).
Hendrickson v. United States, 791 F.3d 354 (2d Cir. 2015). “On April 29, 1985, nearly a month later, the parties signed and submitted to the district court a “Stipulation for Compromise Settlement Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2677” (“Settlement Agreement”) that provided the final terms of the settlement, including the precise amounts of the…”
Fed. Deposit Ins. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471 (1994). “In Hubsch , the parties submitted to this Court for approval a settlement agreement under 28 U. S. C. § 2677 (1946 ed., Supp. IV), which at the time provided that the Attorney General, “with the approval of the court,” could “settle any claim cognizable under section 1346(b).”
United States v. John M. Reilly, 385 F.2d 225 (10th Cir. 1967). “The contested issues of law and fact arising out of these allegations were never tried, for on October 23, 1964 the compromise settlement of $350,000 was accepted by the Attorney General of the United States and submitted to the trial court for approval pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §…”
Anderson v. United States, 46 A.3d 426 (Md. 2012). “See 28 U.S.C. § 2677 (2012). The *103 FTCA contains a two-year statute of limitations regarding the timeliness of bringing claims against the government; however, if there is substantive law in the state where the claim arose governing the timeliness of a similar claim, the…”
Collick v. United States, 552 F. Supp. 2d 349 (E.D.N.Y 2008). “By letter dated March 15, 2007, counsel for the government mailed to plaintiffs counsel a “Stipulation for Compromise Settlement and Release of the FTC Claims Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2677” and a “Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice,” (collectively, the “Settlement…”
Helen D. Kelley & John E. Kelley v. United States of Am., Ruth Semko, 568 F.2d 259 (2d Cir. 1978). “” See 28 U.S.C. § 2677 (1964). The 1966 amendments altered Section 2677 in two respects: it deleted the requirement for court approval of settlements, and empowered the Attorney General “or his designee” to make settlements.”
Dowling v. A.R.T. Inst. of Wash., Inc., 372 F. Supp. 3d 274 (D. Maryland 2019). “Further, the Settlement Agreement plainly contemplated full satisfaction for claims "against all persons, in their individual or official capacities , and against *283 the United States of America and all of its agencies, whether known or unknown, arising directly or indirectly…”
Blockston v. United States, 278 F. Supp. 576 (D. Maryland 1968). “Plaintiffs’ claim against the government and the government’s claim against Grimberg have been settled, and the settlement has been approved by Judge Winter, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2677 . The government has formally abandoned its third-party claim against Hydrotherm for…”
Gerald Thompson, & Cynthia Thompson, Husband & Wife v. Daphne Wheeler, & John D. Risse, Additional Appeal of Daphne Wheeler, 898 F.2d 406 (3rd Cir. 1990). “The United States counterclaimed but on July 19, 1988, the parties to the Wheeler-Risse action entered into a stipulation of compromise settlement pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2677 which provided that they agreed “to settle and compromise” the Wheeler-Risse litigation for $13,500 to…”
Begay v. United States, 16 Cl. Ct. 107 (Ct. Cl. 1987). “Indeed, Esther and Joe filed an unsuccessful administrative claim, based in part on Reba’s death, under the Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2677 . Likewise, any claims Esther and Joe themselves would have as a result of Reba’s death, e.”
In the Matter or Lowell S. Fallick, Bankrupt-Appellant v. Harry Kehr, 369 F.2d 899 (2d Cir. 1966). “§ 186 (c) (B) (arbitration of union trust funds disputes) ; 28 U.S.C. § 2677 (arbitration of tort claims against the Government); 46 U.”
A.P. Ex Rel. Phinesee v. United States, 556 F. App'x 132 (3rd Cir. 2014). “See 28 U.S.C. § 2677 ; 28 C.F.R. §§ 0.160 (a)(2), 0.”
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.