41 U.S.C. § 114
Standards
In this subtitle, the term “standards” means the criteria for determining the effectiveness of the procurement system by measuring the performance of the various elements of the system.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 64
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1946–2022 · leading case: Wolfchild v. United States, 72 Fed. Cl. 511 (Fed. Cl. 2006).
Wolfchild v. United States, 72 Fed. Cl. 511 (Fed. Cl. 2006). “In Wolfchild II, the court noted that given the Communities’ control over and interest in the trust property, it might be necessary in the future to issue summonses to the Communities pursuant to 41 U.S.C. § 114 (b). Id. at 799-801 . 5 A number of different issues are currently…”
Wolfchild v. United States, 68 Fed. Cl. 779 (Fed. Cl. 2005). “The posture of the communities in this case gives rise to a question whether summons should be issued to join them as parties pursuant to 41 U.S.C. § 114 (b). For the reasons stated below, the government’s motion for reconsideration is denied, plaintiffs’ motion for…”
Maryland Cas. Co. v. United States, 141 F. Supp. 900 (Ct. Cl. 1956). “In its petition the plaintiff says that since Fidelity appears to have an interest in the subject matter of the suit, it should be notified to appear as a party and assert its interest therein, pursuant to 41 U.S.C.A. § 114 and rule 19 of this court, 28 U.”
Uusi, LLC, & Oldnar Corp. v. United States, 110 Fed. Cl. 604 (Fed. Cl. 2013). “§ 1498 (a); 41 U.S.C. § 114 ; 28 U.S.C. § 2071 (a), (c); 28 U.”
S. California Edison Co. v. United States, 38 Fed. Cl. 54 (Fed. Cl. 1997). “The premise of the government’s contingent claims is that any monetary liability determined against it in plaintiffs favor represents, in turn, an amount that was incorrectly paid to and distributed among the third-party defendants and consequently is a proper subject for…”
Bird v. United States, 51 Fed. Cl. 536 (Fed. Cl. 2002). “Defendant therefore insists that Butler has an “interest” in this case and that notice is proper under 41 U.S.C. § 114 (b) (1994), and RCFC 14(a)(1), reasoning: If the Court finds that plaintiffs [made misrepresentations], that would support our material misrepresentation…”
Oak Forest, Inc. v. United States, 26 Cl. Ct. 1397 (Ct. Cl. 1992). “663 (current version at 41 U.S.C. § 114 (b) (1987)) (“§ 114(b)”).”
Bowser, Inc. v. The United States & Gen. Steel Tank Co., Inc., Third-Party, 420 F.2d 1057 (3rd Cir. 1970). “This case again presents to the court questions as to scope of our jurisdiction over third parties impleaded under Section 14(b) of the Contract Settlement Act of 1944, 41 U.S.C. § 114 (b) (1964). 1 The relevant facts are as follows: Plaintiff, Bowser, Inc.”
Rolls-Royce Ltd., Derby, England, a British Co. v. The United States & United Aircraft Corp., Defendant-Intervenor, 364 F.2d 415 (Ct. Cl. 1966). “In short, United asserts that since the effect or non-effect of the manufacturing agreement is an essential determination to be made in regard to the principal claim, the court has broad ancillary power, under Rule 21 and under Section 14 (b) of the Contract Settlement Act of…”
Wolfchild v. United States, 77 Fed. Cl. 22 (Fed. Cl. 2007). “6 Finally, in Wolfchild III, the court also considered plaintiffs’ motion pursuant to 41 U.S.C. § 114 (b), requesting that the court issue summonses to the Lower Sioux, Shako-pee Mdewakanton Sioux, and Prairie Island Indian Communities (the “three communities”).”
Honeywell Int'l, Inc. v. United States, 66 Fed. Cl. 400 (Fed. Cl. 2005). “On May 23, 2003, the Government filed a Motion to Issue a Notice to Third Party Lockheed Martin, pursuant to 41 U.S.C. § 114 (b) and RCFC 14(b). On June 5, 2003, the court granted the Government’s Motion.”
Peoples Apparel, Ltd., 226 Ct. Cl. 515 (Ct. Cl. 1980). “Rule 41(a)(1) implements section 14(b) of the Contract Settlement Act of 1944, 41 U.S.C. § 114 (b). While this statute allows a third party to participate in litigation before this court, it does not grant us jurisdiction to render a judgment for the plaintiff against such a…”
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.