holding that qui tam plaintiffs have Article III standing
Summary of this case from U.S. v. Westinghouse Hanford CompanyNo. 93-7601.
February 22, 1994, OCTOBER TERM, 1993.
C.A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 7 F. 3d 709.
holding that qui tam plaintiffs have Article III standing
Summary of this case from U.S. v. Westinghouse Hanford Companystanding justified on the theory that FCA's qui tam provisions operate "as an enforceable unilateral contract"
Summary of this case from United States ex rel. Stevens v. Vermont Agency of Natural Resourcesdeclining to decide the issue
Summary of this case from Forest Ambulance Serv. v. Mercy Amb. of RichmondFull title:LATIMORE v. WIDSETH
Court:U.S.
Date published: Feb 22, 1994
There is no need now to revisit case law upholding the constitutionality of the FCA's qui tam provisions in…
United States ex rel. Wright v. Cleo Wallace CentersThe Tenth Circuit has not addressed whether the restrictions on Executive authority in the FCA's qui tam…