50 U.S.C. § 4557

Liability for compliance with invalid regulations; discrimination against orders or contracts affected by priorities or allocations

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 50 CasesGoogle Scholar

No person shall be held liable for damages or penalties for any act or failure to act resulting directly or indirectly from compliance with a rule, regulation, or order issued pursuant to this chapter, notwithstanding that any such rule, regulation, or order shall thereafter be declared by judicial or other competent authority to be invalid. No person shall discriminate against orders or contracts to which priority is assigned or for which materials or facilities are allocated under subchapter I of this chapter or under any rule, regulation, or order issued thereunder, by charging higher prices or by imposing different terms and conditions for such orders or contracts than for other generally comparable orders or contracts, or in any other manner.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2020–2026 · leading case: Preemptive Effect of Def. Prod. Act Order on State Law (OLC 2026).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Preemptive Effect of Def. Prod. Act Order on State Law (OLC 2026). · cites it 12× “See 50 U.S.C. § 4557. Indeed, the DPA expressly contemplates reprioritizing contractual commitments for national-defense interests, notwithstanding that doing so may cause a party to breach its obligations under state contract law.”

Nicole Van Dorn Preston as Surviving Spouse & Pers. Rep. for the Est. of Lt. J. Wesley Van Dorn, USN, Amy Snyder, as Surviving Spouse & Pers. Rep. for the Est. of Lt. Sean Christopher Snyder, USN, Cheyenne Collins, as Surviving Spouse & Pers. Rep. for the Est. of Petty Officer 3rd Class Brian Andrew Collins, USN, & Petty Officer 2nd Class Dylan Morgan Boone, USN v. M1 Support Servs., L.P. (Tex. App. 2020). “2510, 2518 (1988); 50 U.S.C.A. § 4557 . Appellants responded to the motion.”

Rucker v. Monsanto Co. (S.D. Ill. 2023). “The second federal defense Removing Defendants alleged in their Notice of Removal is 50 U.S.C.A. § 4557 (formerly 50 U.S.C. § 2157 ) which is commonly referred to as the Defense Production Act.”

Invictus Global Servs. Inc v. Insitu Inc (E.D. Wash. 2022). “” 50 U.S.C. § 4557 . Similarly, the common law doctrine of official 11 justification can apply as a defense where the challenged actions were taken on the 12 government’s behalf.”

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.