U.S. Code » Title 41 » Subtitle Subtitle I— Federal Procurement Policy › Division Division B— Office of Federal Procurement Policy › Chapter CHAPTER 11— ESTABLISHMENT OF OFFICE AND AUTHORITY AND FUNCTIONS OF ADMINISTRATOR › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER II— AUTHORITY AND FUNCTIONS OF THE ADMINISTRATOR

41 U.S.C. § 1125

Recipients of Federal grants or assistance

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 41 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a)Authority.—With due regard to applicable laws and the program activities of the executive agencies administering Federal programs of grants or assistance, the Administrator may prescribe Government-wide policies, regulations, procedures, and forms that the Administrator considers appropriate and that executive agencies shall follow in providing for the procurement, to the extent required under those programs, of property or services referred to in section 1121(c)(1) of this title by recipients of Federal grants or assistance under the programs.(b)Limitation.—Subsection (a) does not—(1) permit the Administrator to authorize procurement or supply support, either directly or indirectly, to a recipient of a Federal grant or assistance; or(2) authorize action by a recipient contrary to State and local law in the case of a program to provide a Federal grant or assistance to a State or political subdivision.(Pub. L. 111–350, § 3, Jan. 4, 2011, 124 Stat. 3688.)

Historical and Revision Notes

Revised

Section

Source (U.S. Code)

Source (Statutes at Large)

1125(a)

41:405(i)(1).

Pub. L. 93–400, § 6(i), Aug. 30, 1974, 88 Stat. 797; Pub. L. 96–83, § 4, Oct. 10, 1979, 93 Stat. 649; Pub. L. 98–191, § 5, Dec. 1, 1983, 97 Stat. 1328.

1125(b)

41:405(i)(2).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2021–2024 · leading case: Infectolab Americas LLC v. ArminLabs GmbH (N.D. Cal. 2021).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Infectolab Americas LLC v. ArminLabs GmbH (N.D. Cal. 2021). “18 Defendant ArminLabs GmbH (“ArminLabs”) now moves pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) to 19 dismiss three claims asserted only by Infectolab for intentional and negligent interference with 20 prospective economic advantage and tortious interference with contract.”
Infectolab Americas LLC v. ArminLabs GmbH (N.D. Cal. 2021). “1 The Court previously granted a Rule 12(b)(6) motion by defendant 18 ArminLabs GmbH (“ArminLabs”) to dismiss three claims asserted only by Infectolab for 19 intentional and negligent interference with prospective economic advantage and tortious 20 interference with contract.”
Power Bus. Tech., LLC v. WiZiX Tech. Grp., Inc. (E.D. Cal. 2024). “§ 1331 because it contains a claim brought under the Lanham Act, 41 U.S.C. § 1125 , 1 along with state claims for which plaintiff seeks supplemental jurisdiction.”
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.