31 U.S.C. § 6304
Using grant agreements
Historical and Revision Notes | ||
|---|---|---|
Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
6304 | 41:504. | Feb. 3, 1978, Pub. L. 95–224, § 5, 92 Stat. 4. |
The words “type of” are omitted as unnecessary. The words “money, property, services” are omitted as being included in “a thing of value”. The words “in order” are omitted as surplus. The words “law of the United States” are substituted for “Federal statute” for consistency.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18
cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1984–2026 · leading case: Hymas v. United States, 810 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Hymas v. United States, 810 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2016). “Congress amended the FGCAA in 1982 without substan- tive change, An Act to amend the Federal Grant and Cooperative Agreement Act, Pub.”
360Training.com, Inc. v. United States, 104 Fed. Cl. 575 (Fed. Cl. 2012). “” 31 U.S.C. § 6304 (emphasis added). . The official version of 41 U.”
Nat'l A-1 Advert., Inc. v. Network Solutions, Inc., 121 F. Supp. 2d 156 (D.N.H. 2000). “Finally, notwithstanding the government’s use of a cooperative agreement (rather than a federal grant) to facilitate and support Network Solutions’ role as private sector second-level domain name registrar, compare 31 U.S.C. § 6304 with 31 U.S.C. § 6305 , the court is not…”
Moore v. United States, 48 Fed. Cl. 394 (Fed. Cl. 2000). “§ 6303 , while grants and cooperative agreements should be used when "the principal purpose of the relationship is to transfer a thing of value [i.”
Chem Serv., Inc. v. Env't Monitoring Sys. Lab'y-Cincinnati of the United States Env't Prot. Agency, 12 F.3d 1256 (3d Cir. 1993). “' 31 U.S.C. § 6304 provides: An executive agency shall use a grant agreement as the legal instrument reflecting a relationship between the United States Government and a State, a local government, or other recipient when— (1) the principal purpose of the relationship is to…”
Head Start Fam. Educ. Prog., Inc. v. Coop. Educ. Serv. Agency 11, 46 F.3d 629 (7th Cir. 1995). “” HSFEP asserts that this section means that a CESA may only enter into contractual relationships and not “financial assistance relationships” (a term of *634 art under federal law, see 31 U.S.C. § 6304 ), but the word “only” is nowhere found in the statute.”
East Arkansas Legal Servs. v. Legal Servs. Corp., 742 F.2d 1472 (D.C. Cir. 1984). “See 31 U.S.C. § 6304 (1982) (defining a “grant agreement” as “the legal instrument reflecting a relationship between the United States Government and a State, a local government, or other recipient when — (1) the principal purpose of the relationship is to transfer a thing of…”
Golden v. United States, 137 Fed. Cl. 155 (Fed. Cl. 2018). “Compare 31 U.S.C. § 6304 (“An executive agency shall use a grant agreement .”
Golden v. United States, 137 Fed. Cl. 155 (Fed. Cl. 2018). “Compare 31 U.S.C. § 6304 ("An executive agency shall use a grant agreement .”
Ozdemir v. United States, 89 Fed. Cl. 631 (Fed. Cl. 2009). “recipient-” 31 U.S.C. § 6304 . Cooperative agreements are also for use in transferring something of value to carry out a public purpose but where “substantial involvement is expected between the executive agency and the .”
Urban Sustainability Directors Network v. United States Dep't of Agric., No. 2025-1775 (D.D.C. Aug. 14, 2025). “31 U.S.C. § 6304 . Cooperative agreements are defined similarly, but as to the second part of the definition, “substantial involvement is expected between the executive agency and the .”
Pacito v. Trump, 169 F.4th 895 (9th Cir. 2026). “Compare 31 U.S.C. § 6304 (2) (substantial involvement not expected with a grant) with 31 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.