Rotella v. Wood
528 U.S. 549 (2000) Cited 919 times 4 Legal AnalysesHolding discovery rule inapplicable to § 2462 limitations period
Ratzlaf v. United States
510 U.S. 135 (1994) Cited 905 times 11 Legal AnalysesHolding that, "[t]o establish that a defendant `willfully violated]' the antistructuring law, the Government must prove that the defendant acted with knowledge that his conduct was unlawful," and stating that "pecific intent to commit the crime . . . might be negated by, e.g., proof that defendant relied in good faith on advice of counsel"
Bedroc Ltd. v. United States
541 U.S. 176 (2004) Cited 511 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding a court presumes that Congress says in the statute what it means
U.S. ex Rel. Grubbs v. Kanneganti
565 F.3d 180 (5th Cir. 2009) Cited 783 times 11 Legal AnalysesHolding that defendants received adequate notice in a False Claims Act case where the complaint alleged a scheme to submit false claims and enough details that the defendants—who "will be in possession of the most relevant records, such as patients’ charts, doctors’ notes, and internal billing records"—could adequately investigate and defend the claims
U.S. ex Rel. Clausen v. Laboratory Corp.
290 F.3d 1301 (11th Cir. 2002) Cited 822 times 14 Legal AnalysesHolding Rule 9(b) applies to False Claims Act claims
Jones v. City
521 F.3d 555 (6th Cir. 2008) Cited 620 timesHolding that when a plaintiff attaches documents to her complaint containing statements by the defendant that conflict with the plaintiff's allegations, the plaintiff is not required to adopt every word in the documents as true
U.S. v. Community Hlth
501 F.3d 493 (6th Cir. 2007) Cited 616 times 8 Legal AnalysesHolding that extrinsic evidence can be considered in determining whether a defendant was on notice of the plaintiff's claims for the purpose of Rule 15(c)
U.S. ex Rel. Lusby v. Rolls-Royce Corp.
570 F.3d 849 (7th Cir. 2009) Cited 380 times 4 Legal AnalysesHolding that a plaintiff need not allege a specific individual claim to satisfy Rule 9(b)
Michaels Bldg. Co. v. Ameritrust Co., N.A.
848 F.2d 674 (6th Cir. 1988) Cited 699 timesHolding that plaintiffs alleging RICO civil fraud claims that failed to satisfy Rule 9(b)'s particularity requirement were entitled to opportunity for discovery under Rule 11(b) before their claims were dismissed
U.S. ex Rel. Bledsoe v. Community Health Sys
342 F.3d 634 (6th Cir. 2003) Cited 388 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding that a complaint did not meet Rule 9(b) ’s pleading requirement where it failed to "specify the names of any individuals involved"
Rule 9 - Pleading Special Matters
Fed. R. Civ. P. 9 Cited 39,122 times 321 Legal AnalysesRequiring that fraud be pleaded with particularity
Section 3729 - False claims
31 U.S.C. § 3729 Cited 6,769 times 631 Legal AnalysesHolding liable "any person" who knowingly causes false claims to be presented
Section 3730 - Civil actions for false claims
31 U.S.C. § 3730 Cited 5,406 times 430 Legal AnalysesGranting the government primary responsibility for conducting suit
Section 2501 - Short title
19 U.S.C. § 2501 Cited 48 times 27 Legal AnalysesThis Act may be cited as the "Trade Agreements Act of 1979". 19 U.S.C. § 2501 Pub. L. 96-39, §1(a), July 26, 1979, 93 Stat. 144. EDITORIAL NOTES REFERENCES IN TEXTThis Act, referred to in text, is Pub. L. 96-39, July 26, 1979, 93 Stat. 144, which enacted this chapter and sections 1516a, 1671 to 1671f, 1673 to 1673i, 1675, 1677 to 1677g, and 2413 to 2416 of this title, amended the Tariff Schedules, and sections 1303, 1311, 1315, 1332, 1336, 1337, 1351, 1401a, 1466, 1500, 1514 to 1516, 1872, 2033,
Section 2503 - Approval of trade agreements
19 U.S.C. § 2503 Cited 18 timesIncorporating Illustrative List into United States domestic law