41 U.S.C. § 106
Federal Acquisition Regulation
In this subtitle, the term “Federal Acquisition Regulation” means the regulation issued under section 1303(a)(1) of this title.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 82
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1948–2023 · leading case: Monolith Portland Midwest Co. v. Reconstruction Fin. Corp., 128 F. Supp. 824 (S.D. Cal. 1955).
Monolith Portland Midwest Co. v. Reconstruction Fin. Corp., 128 F. Supp. 824 (S.D. Cal. 1955). “Congress deliberately chose to use a different term, “fair compensation” and also to specify guide posts in the application of the term, Settlement Act § 6 (b) and (d), 41 U.”
Shell Oil Co. v. United States, 7 F.4th 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2021). “” 41 U.S.C. § 106 (f) (re- pealed 2011). Case: 20-2221 Document: 40 Page: 8 Filed: 08/04/2021 8 SHELL OIL COMPANY v.”
Howard Indus., Inc. v. United States, 83 F. Supp. 337 (Ct. Cl. 1949). “902 , 41 U.S.C.A. § 106 note, known as the Lucas Act, which authorizes relief for war contractors who suffered net losses in the performance of Government contracts between September 16, 1940, and August 14, 1945.”
Shell Oil Co. v. United States, 130 Fed. Cl. 8 (Fed. Cl. 2017). “41 U.S.C. § 106 (f) (repealed 2011) (emphasis added).”
United States v. Penn Foundry & Mfg. Co., 337 U.S. 198 (1949). “902 , 41 U.S.C. § 106 note; Regulation No. 7, Office of Contract Settlement, 32 C.”
Piggly Wiggly Corp. v. United States, 81 F. Supp. 819 (Ct. Cl. 1949). “Plaintiff contends that such fees are properly allowable under Section 6(d) of the Contract Settlement Act of 1944, 41 U.S.C.A. § 106 (d). Defendant contends that the only accounting and legal fees which may be taken into account are those incident to the contract- *828 or’s…”
Gen. Cas. Co. of Am. v. United States, 127 F. Supp. 805 (Ct. Cl. 1955). “Count one of the petition, a Lucas Act, 41 U.S.C.A. § 106 note, claim, was dismissed by this court on January 8, 1952.”
Fogarty v. United States, 340 U.S. 8 (1950). “902 , 41 U. S. C. § 106 note, to recover $328,804.”
Tucson Airport Auth. v. Gen. Dynamics Corp., 136 F.3d 641 (9th Cir. 1998). “In the portion of the complaint at issue on appeal, General Dynamics contends that the government’s failure to assume its defense-as required by the Modification Center Contract-violates the Contract Settlement Act, 41 U.S.C. § 106 (c), and several provisions of the United…”
J. E. Robertson Co. v. United States, 194 Ct. Cl. 289 (Ct. Cl. 1971). “25 under the provisions of 41 U.S.C. § 106 (d) (8) 8 and paragraph (e) of tbe termination clause, “General Provision 24.”
Shell Oil Co. v. United States, 86 Fed. Cl. 470 (Fed. Cl. 2009). “5 percent pursuant to § 106(f) of the Contract Settlement Act, 41 U.S.C. § 106 (f)- Through July 1, 2008, interest accrued on the $64,219,514.”
Houdaille Indus., Inc. v. United States, 151 F. Supp. 298 (Ct. Cl. 1957). “If the plaintiff is sustained on the former theory it will recover in addition to the amount claimed, interest at the rate of 2½ percent per annum, 41 U.S.C.A. § 106 (f), otherwise the recovery ,yyill be only for the sum claimed.”
— 41 U.S.C. § 106(f) — 1 case
Houdaille Indus., Inc. v. United States, 151 F. Supp. 298 (Ct. Cl. 1957). “If the plaintiff is sustained on the former theory it will recover in addition to the amount claimed, interest at the rate of 2½ percent per annum, 41 U.S.C.A. § 106 (f), otherwise the recovery ,yyill be only for the sum claimed.”
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.