30 Cited authorities

Connecticut Nat. Bank v. Germain
503 U.S. 249 (1992) Cited 2,701 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding that § 1292 applies also to bankruptcy jurisdiction and is not displaced by § 158(d)
Russello v. United States
464 U.S. 16 (1983) Cited 2,096 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that where "Congress includes particular language in one section of a statute but omits it in another section of the same Act," courts presume that "Congress acts intentionally and purposely in the disparate inclusion or exclusion"
Rockwell Int'l Corp. et al. v. United States
549 U.S. 457 (2007) Cited 802 times 17 Legal Analyses
Holding that the term "allegations" as used in § 3730(e) "is not limited to the allegations in the original complaint" and "includes (at a minimum) the allegations in the original complaint as amended"
Bedroc Ltd. v. United States
541 U.S. 176 (2004) Cited 509 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding a court presumes that Congress says in the statute what it means
Ritchie v. Lockheed Martin Corp.
558 F.3d 1161 (10th Cir. 2009) Cited 174 times 3 Legal Analyses
Finding that motion to amend was untimely and unduly prejudicial where it was made after close of a long discovery period and after defendant had filed a motion for summary judgment premised on the releases signed by plaintiff
U.S. Duxbury v. Ortho Biotech Pro
579 F.3d 13 (1st Cir. 2009) Cited 155 times 14 Legal Analyses
Holding that, in actions “in which the defendant induced third parties to file false claims with the government,” it was not necessary to “provid[e] details as to each false claim” if there were “factual or statistical evidence to strengthen the inference of fraud beyond possibility”
U.S. v. Smithkline Beecham
149 F.3d 227 (3d Cir. 1998) Cited 197 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that "the original complaints' failure specifically to mention [a new] blood test[] for which [the defendant] fraudulently billed the government is of no significance" because the original relator alleged the same essential facts and the second relator did not describe a separate fraudulent scheme as to the new blood test
U.S. ex rel Stone v. Rockwell Intern. Corp.
282 F.3d 787 (10th Cir. 2002) Cited 157 times
Holding that the relator satisfied the "direct" knowledge requirement even though he no longer worked with the defendant when the faulty pondcrete blocks were manufactured because he learned the facts underlying his claim while looking at the plans for production
U.S. ex Rel. Reagan v. East Texas Med. Center
384 F.3d 168 (5th Cir. 2004) Cited 120 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the original source requirement is satisfied where a relator's investigation or experience “translate into some additional compelling fact, or ... demonstrate a new and undisclosed relationship between disclosed facts.”
Federal Recovery Services, Inc. v. U.S.
72 F.3d 447 (5th Cir. 1996) Cited 123 times
Holding that relators who brought suit against a competitor and other defendants were not original sources
Section 3729 - False claims
31 U.S.C. § 3729 Cited 6,735 times 628 Legal Analyses
Holding liable "any person" who knowingly causes false claims to be presented
Section 3730 - Civil actions for false claims
31 U.S.C. § 3730 Cited 5,373 times 430 Legal Analyses
Granting the government primary responsibility for conducting suit

United States of America, ex rel Michael J. Fisher v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.

30 Cited authorities

Holding that § 1292 applies also to bankruptcy jurisdiction and is not displaced by § 158(d)

Holding that where "Congress includes particular language in one section of a statute but omits it in another section of the same Act," courts presume that "Congress acts intentionally and purposely in the disparate inclusion or exclusion"

Holding that the term "allegations" as used in § 3730(e) "is not limited to the allegations in the original complaint" and "includes (at a minimum) the allegations in the original complaint as amended"

Holding a court presumes that Congress says in the statute what it means

Finding that motion to amend was untimely and unduly prejudicial where it was made after close of a long discovery period and after defendant had filed a motion for summary judgment premised on the releases signed by plaintiff

Holding that, in actions “in which the defendant induced third parties to file false claims with the government,” it was not necessary to “provid[e] details as to each false claim” if there were “factual or statistical evidence to strengthen the inference of fraud beyond possibility”

Holding that the relator satisfied the "direct" knowledge requirement even though he no longer worked with the defendant when the faulty pondcrete blocks were manufactured because he learned the facts underlying his claim while looking at the plans for production

Holding that the original source requirement is satisfied where a relator's investigation or experience “translate into some additional compelling fact, or ... demonstrate a new and undisclosed relationship between disclosed facts.”

Holding that relators who brought suit against a competitor and other defendants were not original sources

Holding liable "any person" who knowingly causes false claims to be presented

Granting the government primary responsibility for conducting suit