41 U.S.C. § 113
Responsible source
Historical and Revision Notes | ||
|---|---|---|
Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
113 | 41:259(c)(5). | June 30, 1949, ch. 288, title III, § 309(c)(5), as added Pub. L. 98–369, title VII, § 2711(a)(3), July 18, 1984, 98 Stat. 1180; Pub. L. 98–577, title V, § 504(a)(4), Oct. 30, 1984, 98 Stat. 3086; Pub. L. 103–355, title I, § 1551, Oct. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 3299. |
| 41:403(7). | Pub. L. 93–400, § 4(7), formerly § 4(8), as added Pub. L. 98–369, title VII, § 2731(3), July 18, 1984, 98 Stat. 1195; Pub. L. 98–577, title I, § 102(2), Oct. 30, 1984, 98 Stat. 3067; redesignated as § 4(7), Pub. L. 100–679, § 3(c), Nov. 17, 1988, 102 Stat. 4056; Pub. L. 103–355, title VIII, § 8001(b)(1)–(3), Oct. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 3386. |
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 29
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1949–2022 · 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). “694 (1944) (codified at 41 U.S.C. § 113 , et seq. (2006)), and filed a new Com- plaint in the Court of Federal Claims, seeking reim- bursement for the CERCLA costs.”
Monolith Portland Midwest Co. v. Reconstruction Fin. Corp., 128 F. Supp. 824 (S.D. Cal. 1955). “made and served on Monolith detailed findings and determinations pursuant to Section 13 of the Settlement Act, 41 U.S.C.A. § 113 . R.F.C. found that no money was due to Monolith on any of the claims, except No.”
Maryland Cas. Co. v. United States, 141 F. Supp. 900 (Ct. Cl. 1956). “*902 Section 13(b) of the Contract Settlement Act, 41 U.S.C.A. § 113 (b), provides that if a Government agency has not settled a war contractor's termination claim by agreement, the contractor may (1) appeal to the Appeal Board created by the Act or (2) sue the United States in…”
Ford Motor Co. v. United States, 378 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2004). “Ford directed attention to the Contract Settlement Act of 1944, 41 U.S.C. § 113 (the CSA), and requested written findings in accordance with the provisions of the CSA.”
Nat'l Cored Forgings Co. v. United States, 115 F. Supp. 469 (Ct. Cl. 1953). “Defendant then filed an answer to the petition in which it asserted as special defenses (1) the failure of the petition to state a cause of action, (2) the lack of jurisdiction in this court on the ground relied on in its motion to dismiss, and (3) that under the provisions of…”
Monolith Portland Midwest Co. v. Reconstruction Fin. Corp., 102 F. Supp. 951 (S.D. Cal. 1952). “§§ 101-125 , is entitled to a jury trial when he seeks relief under Section 13(b) (2), 41 U.S.C.A. § 113 (b) (2), of the Act?” The facts of the present case are found in two former opinions, Monolith Portland Mid.”
Shell Oil Co. v. United States, 7 F.4th 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2021). “On November 22, 2019, the Oil Companies filed this action in the Claims Court pursuant to Section 13(c)(2) of the CSA, 41 U.S.C. § 113 (c)(2). The complaint alleged that, between December 1, 2015 and September 30, 2019, the Oil Companies paid an additional $1,543,840.”
Piggly Wiggly Corp. v. United States, 81 F. Supp. 819 (Ct. Cl. 1949). “that amount, and, pursuant to Section 13(b) of the Contract Settlement Act of 1944, 41 U.S.C.A. § 113 (b), brings its ■suit in this court with respect to its termination claim.”
Shell Oil Co. v. United States, 80 Fed. Cl. 411 (Fed. Cl. 2008). “In order to exhaust their administrative remedies in accordance with the Contract Settlement Act of 1944(CSA), 41 U.S.C. § 113 , Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the transferred complaint without prejudice.”
Shell Oil Co. v. United States, 123 Fed. Cl. 707 (Fed. Cl. 2015). “§ 2514 (Special Plea In Fraud); 41 U.S.C. § 113 (a),. Contract Settlement Act of 1944, (repealed and replaced by Pub.”
In the Matter or Lowell S. Fallick, Bankrupt-Appellant v. Harry Kehr, 369 F.2d 899 (2d Cir. 1966). “§§ 749 , 786 (arbitration of admiralty claims against the Government); 41 U.S.C. § 113 (e) (arbitration of war contracts claims).”
Houdaille Indus., Inc. v. United States, 151 F. Supp. 298 (Ct. Cl. 1957). “627 , effective midnight January 13, 1953, 41 U.S.C.A. § 113 note. First in the order of consideration must be whether the release executed by plaintiff on January 25, 1950, is of such a nature to bar plaintiff from recovering its claims in this case.”
— 41 U.S.C. § 113(a) — 1 case
Piggly Wiggly Corp. v. United States, 81 F. Supp. 819 (Ct. Cl. 1949). “that amount, and, pursuant to Section 13(b) of the Contract Settlement Act of 1944, 41 U.S.C.A. § 113 (b), brings its ■suit in this court with respect to its termination claim.”
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.