41 U.S.C. § 101
Administrator
In this subtitle, the term “Administrator” means the Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy appointed under section 1102 of this title.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 62
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1945–2021 · leading case: Shell Oil Co. v. United States, 751 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Shell Oil Co. v. United States, 751 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2014). “” 41 U.S.C. § 101 (2006) (emphasis added), repealed and replaced by An Act To Enact Certain Laws Relating to Public Contracts, Pub.”
United States v. Park Place Assocs., Ltd., 563 F.3d 907 (9th Cir. 2009). “On appeal to this court, the plaintiff contended that the government’s refusal violated the Contract Settlement Act (“CSA”), 41 U.S.C. § 101 et seq., and hence that its claim was not contractually based.”
E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., Inc. v. United States, 365 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2004). “Contract Settlement Act The Contract Settlement Act of 1944 (“CSA”), 41 U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq. (2000), expressly declares its “objectives,” which include “assuring] to prime contractors and subcontractors, small and large, speedy and equitable final settlement of claims under…”
Maryland Cas. Co. v. United States, 141 F. Supp. 900 (Ct. Cl. 1956). “, 41 U.S. C.A. § 101 et seq. This case obviously has no relation to that Act.”
Erie Basin Metal Prods., Inc. v. United States, 150 F. Supp. 561 (Ct. Cl. 1957). “649 , 41 U.S.C.A. § 101 et seq., for its allowable costs incident to the termination of certain contracts it had with the defendant.”
Monolith Portland Midwest Co. v. Reconstruction Fin. Corp., 128 F. Supp. 824 (S.D. Cal. 1955). “Though not applicable here, § 1(b), 41 U.S.C.A. § 101 (b), speaks of “equitable final settlements” as an objective and § 7(e), 41 U.”
Shell Oil Co. v. the United States 06-141c & 0, 108 Fed. Cl. 422 (Fed. Cl. 2013). “The rulings in DuPont and Ford Motor were also contingent upon the Federal Circuit’s finding that (1) the plaintiffs had expressly preserved their indemnification rights through the terms of their termination agreements, and (2) the Contract Settlement Act of 1944, 41 U.S.C. §…”
Nulankeyutmonen Nkihtaqmikon v. Bureau of Indian Affairs, 493 F. Supp. 2d 91 (D. Me. 2007). “E) agencies composed of representatives of the parties or of representatives of organizations of the parties to the disputes determined by them; (F) courts martial and military commissions; (G) military authority exercised in the field in time of war or in occupied territory; or…”
Parker v. Dep't of Health, Educ., & Welfare, 478 F. Supp. 1156 (M.D. Tenn. 1979). “§ 1346 (b), and 41 U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq. In their first amended complaint, plaintiffs asserted jurisdiction on the same grounds and added 45 C.”
Shell Oil Co. v. United States, 123 Fed. Cl. 707 (Fed. Cl. 2015). “constitutes a failure to pay ‘fair compensation’ in violation of the Contract Settlement Act of 1944, 41 U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq.” Compl. 11 27, 29.”
United States v. Penn Foundry & Mfg. Co., 337 U.S. 198 (1949). “593, 55 Stat. 839 , § 201, 50 U.S.C. App. § 611; Executive Order No.”
Am. Employers Ins. Co. v. The United States, 812 F.2d 700 (Fed. Cir. 1987). “With the close of World War II, the United States proceeded to terminate, assign, and settle contracts and subcontracts entered into for the war effort, pursuant to the Contract Settlement Act of 1944 (Act), 41 U.S.C. § 101 et seq. Accordingly, the Bethlehem-Alameda shipbuilding…”
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.