green
Positive treatment
43.5 score
Treatment trajectory · 1977 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1977
2001
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Tran v. Gulf Coast Bank & Trust Company
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Weinberger v. Equifax, Inc., 557 F.2d 456 (5th Cir. 1977). 27 557 F.2d 456 (5th Cir. 1977). 28 Id. at 463 (internal citations omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
ABRAHAM v. THOMAS JEFFERSON UNIVERSITY
Weinberger v. Equifax, Inc., 557 F.2d 456, 463 (5th Cir. 1977), cert denied, 434 U.S. 1035 (1978) (recusal not required where judge’s son, an associate at a law firm representing defendant, did not actively participate in the case).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
ABRAHAM v. THOMAS JEFFERSON UNIVERSITY
Weinberger v. Equifax, Inc., 557 F.2d 456, 463 (5th Cir. 1977), cert denied, 434 U.S. 1035 (1978) (recusal not required where judge’s son, an associate at a law firm representing defendant, did not actively participate in the case).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ravikant v. Rohde, MD
Weinberger v. Equifax, Inc., 557 F.2d 456, 463 (5th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1035 (1978) (holding that a trial judge was not required to recuse himself where his son was an associate at the law firm representing the defendant because his son did not work on the matter and his salary interest was too remote to constitute a disqualifying “financial interest”).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Christopher Pillow v. DeWayne Burton
Weinberger v. Equifax, 557 F.2d 456, 463 (5th Cir. 1977).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Jeffrey I Golden v. O'Melveny & Myers, LLP
See Datagate, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 941 F.2d 864, 871 (9th Cir. 1991) (“an employment relationship between a judge’s child and a party to the suit has not generally been held to merit per se disqualification.”); U.S. □□□□ Weinberger v. Equifax, Inc., 557 F.2d 456, 463-64 (Sth Cir. 1977) (recusal not required where judge’s son was an associate of the law firm representing defendant and son did not actively participate in the case).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Alaska Building, Inc. v. Legislative Affairs Agency
Weinberger v. Equifax, Inc., 557 F.2d 456, 460 (5th Cir. 1977). -14- 7193 Furthermore, the record contains no evidence that Alaska Building brought the percentage-of-savings claim for an improper purpose.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Alaska Building, Inc. v. Legislative Affairs Agency
(2×)
Weinberger v. Equifax, Inc., 557 F.2d 456, 460 (5th Cir. 1977). .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Laurence Isaacson
Weinberger v. Equifax, Inc., 557 F.2d 456, 463-64 (5th Cir.1977) (holding that a District Court judge was not required to recuse himself 11 where the judge’s son was an attorney with the firm representing one of the parties because the son’s “salary interest as an associate is too remote” to give rise to any arguable conflict); 12 see also United States v. Reagan, 725 F.3d 471, 488 (5th Cir.2013) (noting that the “mere fact that the prosecutor’s husband worked at a firm that represented one of the witnesses did not create a conflict, as [the defendant] did not show that the prosecu…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States ex rel. Thomas v. Siemens AG
Weinberger v. Equifax, Inc., 557 F.2d 456, 461 (5th Cir.1977) (to prove the defendant made a false claim by misrepresenting its qualifications for government employment, relator had to “demonstrate that the government was misled” by defendant’s misrepresentation of its qualifications on its application and hired defendant on that basis).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Rodriguez-Vilanova v. Stryker Corp.
United States ex rel Weinberger v. Equifax, Inc., 557 F.2d 456, 463 (5th Cir.1977). 2 Plaintiff offers this case for the proposition that my relationship with an associate at a participating law firm should be considered for the purposes of section 455(a) analysis.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States Ex Rel. Wright v. Comstock Resources, Inc.
Weinberger v. Equifax, Inc., 557 F.2d 456, 461 (5th Cir.1977)); see also Steury, 625 F.3d at 268.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States ex rel. Vavra v. Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc.
Weinberger v. Equifax, Inc., 557 F.2d 456, 460-61 (5th Cir.1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1035 , 98 S.Ct. 768 , 54 L.Ed.2d 782 (1978). 7 Nonetheless, a false claim is stated when it involves a knowingly false certification of compliance with a statute or regulation and that certification is a prerequisite to payment of the asserted claim.” Southland Mgmt.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Kapila v. Clark Ex Rel. Matthew Wortley Trust (In Re Trafford Distribution Center, Inc.)
Weinberger v. Equifax, Inc., 557 F.2d 456, 463 (5th Cir.1977), ce rt. denied, 434 U.S. 1035 , 98 S.Ct. 768 , 54 L.Ed.2d 782 (1978) (holding that judge was not required to recuse himself when son was an associate in the firm) with SCA Services, Inc. v. Morgan, 557 F.2d 110 (7th Cir.1977) (holding that the judge's brother was a senior partner in the firm and therefore financially interested, requiring recusal). 9 .
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
United States Ex Rel. Ramadoss v. Caremark Inc.
(3×)
Finally, the FCA is a punitive statute in nature and therefore must be carefully construed against the Government. 21 United States ex rel Weinberger v. Equifax, Inc., 557 F.2d 456, 460 (5th Cir.1977); United States ex rel.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Vazquez-Botet
Weinberger v. Equifax, Inc., 557 F.2d 456, 463-64 (5th Cir.1977) (recusal required where judge’s family member actively participates).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
In re: US v.
Weinberger v. Equifax, Inc., 557 F.2d 456, 463-64 (5th Cir. 1977) (recusal required where judge's family member actively participates).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
De Angelis v. The City of El Paso
Weinberger v. Equifax, Inc., 557 F.2d 456, 463 (5th Cir.1977) (holding the judge did not abuse his discretion by failing to recuse himself from a case in which one party’s counsel employed the judge’s son as an associate because ”[h]is salary interest as an associate is too remote to fall under th[e] 'financial interest' prohibition”).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States Ex Rel. Hockett v. Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corp.
Weinberger v. Equifax, Inc., 557 F.2d 456, 460 (5th Cir.1977) (FCA applies only to false statements and “was not designed to reach every kind of fraud practiced on the Government”) (quoting United States v. McNinch, 356 U.S. 595, 599 , 78 S.Ct. 950 , 2 L.Ed.2d 1001 (1958)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States Ex Rel. Gudur v. Deloitte Consulting LLP
Weinberger v. Equifax, Inc., 557 F.2d 456, 460-61 (5th Cir.1977), the Fifth Circuit held that claims submitted by a government contractor who allegedly violated the Anti-Pinkerton Act did not necessarily constitute false or fraudulent claims under the FCA because the FCA is not an enforcement device for the Anti-Pinkerton Act.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States ex rel. Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe v. President R.C.-St. Regis Management Co.
Weinberger v. Equifax, Inc., 557 F.2d 456, 459-60 (5th Cir.1977), for the proposition that a “qui tam plaintiff has no standing to seek [a] declaratory judgment against [a] defendant”).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. President St. Regis Management Company
Weinberger v. Equifax, Inc., 557 F.2d 456, 459-60 (5th Cir.1977), for the proposition that a "qui tam plaintiff has no standing to seek [a] declaratory judgment against [a] defendant").
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
FAITH TEMPLE CHRUCH v. Town of Brighton
(4×)
also: Cited "see"
Weinberger v. Equifax, Inc., 557 F.2d 456, 463 (5th Cir.1977) (that district judge’s son’s law firm represented defendant did not mean that son was “acting as a lawyer in the proceeding,” since § 455(b)(5)(h) “requires actual participation” by the family member, and here judge’s son did not actively participate in party’s defense), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1035 , 98 S.Ct. 768 , 54 L.Ed.2d 782 (1978).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Sensley v. Albritton
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
Weinberger v. Equifax, Inc., 557 F.2d 456, 464 (5th Cir.1977).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Medica-Rents Co.
Weinberger v. Equifax, Inc., 557 F.2d 456, 460-61 (5th Cir.1977); United States ex rel.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States Ex Rel. Willard v. Humana Health Plan of Texas Inc.
Weinberger v. Equifax, Inc., 557 F.2d 456, 461 (5th Cir.1977)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Southland Management
Weinberger v. Equifax, Inc., 557 F.2d 456, 461 (5th Cir.1977)).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Southland Management Corp.
(5×)
also: Cited "see"
Weinberger v. Equifax, Inc., 557 F.2d 456, 461 (5th Cir. 1977)); see also Luckey v. Baxter Health 18 Care Corp., 183 F.3d 730, 732 (7th Cir. 1999); United States ex rel.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Southland Management Corporation, W. Thad McLaurin Charles C. Taylor, Jr. Arthur W. Doty
(8×)
also: Cited "see"
Weinberger v. Equifax, Inc., 557 F.2d 456, 461 (5th Cir.1977)); see also Luckey v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 183 F.3d 730, 732 (7th Cir.1999); United States ex rel.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
United States Ex Rel. Wilkins v. North American Construction Corp.
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
See, e.g., Hess, 317 U.S. 537 , 63 S.Ct. 379 (finding contractors liable under the False Claims Act for claims submitted under government contacts which defendants obtained through collusive bidding); Equifax, 557 F.2d at 459-461; Hagood, 929 F.2d at 1420 (relator stated claim where county water agency and Army Corps of Engineers employee conspired to illegally lower the agency’s contractual repayment obligations); United States v. General Dynamics Corp., 19 F.3d 770 (2d Cir.1994) (defendant held liable for submitting inflated cost estimates in subcontract submitted for approval to governmen…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States Ex Rel. Siewick v. Jamieson Science & Engineering, Inc.
Weinberger v. Equifax, Inc., 557 F.2d 456, 461 (5th Cir.1977); compare United States ex rel.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Lum v. Vision Service Plan
Weinberger v. Equifax, Inc., 557 F.2d 456, 460-61 (5th Cir.1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1035 , 98 S.Ct. 768 , 54 L.Ed.2d 782 (1978)); Luckey v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 2 F.Supp.2d 1034, 1045 (N.D.Ill.1998) (noting that the key inquiry is whether the claim in question has the practical purpose and effect, and poses the attendant risk, of inducing wrongful payment), aff 'd, 183 F.3d 730 , cert. denied, — U.S. -, 120 S.Ct. 562 , 145 L.Ed.2d 439 (1999).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Riley v. St. Luke's Episcopal Hospital
(6×)
Weinberger v. Equifax, 557 F.2d 456, 460 (5th Cir. 1977), and a recent opinion in which the Supreme Court adjudicated an FCA qui tam suit without objecting to the standing of the uninjured relator, see Hughes Aircraft Co. v. United States ex rel.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Riley v. St. Luke's Episcopal Hospital
(6×)
also: Cited "see"
Weinberger v. Equifax, 557 F.2d 456, 460 (5th Cir.1977), and a recent opinion in which the Supreme Court adjudicated an FCA qui tam suit without objecting to the standing of the uninjured relator, see Hughes Aircraft Co. v. United States ex rel.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States Ex Rel. Butler v. Magellan Health Services, Inc.
(2×)
Weinberger v. Equifax, Inc., 557 F.2d 456, 460 (5th Cir.1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1035 , 98 S.Ct. 768 , 54 L.Ed.2d 782 (1978).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Coleman v. Disabled Amer Vets
Weinberger v. Equifax, Inc., 557 F.2d 456, 460-61 (5th Cir. 1977).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Intervest Corp.
Weinberger v. Equifax, Inc., 557 F.2d 456, 461 (5th Cir. 1977).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Harrison v. Westinghouse Savannah
Weinberger v. Equifax, 557 F.2d 456, 461 (5th Cir. 1977) (finding no certification was made and none was required; involved alleged viola- tion of Anti-Pinkerton Act). 10 The phrase "fraud-in-the-inducement" in the False Claims Act con- text was coined by the court in United States ex rel.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Edwin P. Harrison, and United States of America, Party in Interest v. Westinghouse Savannah River Company
Weinberger v. Equifax, 557 F.2d 456, 461 (5th Cir.1977) (finding no certification was made and none was required; involved alleged violation of Anti-Pinkerton Act). 10 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Carol Rae Cooper Foulds v. Texas Tech University
(2×)
Weinberger v. Equifax, Inc., 557 F.2d 456, 460 (5th Cir.1977).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Edwards
Equifax, 557 F.2d at 463, cited with approval in Potashnick v. Port City Constr.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
United States Ex Rel. Thompson v. Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corp.
(3×)
Weinberger v. Equifax, Inc., 557 F.2d 456, 460 (5th Cir.1977), found that the FCA “grants informers standing to sue and an award for successful action under the statute.” The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit recognized that the United States is the real party in interest in an FCA case, even when it elects not to control the suit.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Luckey v. Baxter Healthcare Corp.
Weinberger v. Equifax, Inc., 557 F.2d 456, 461 (5th Cir.1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1035 , 98 S.Ct. 768 , 54 L.Ed.2d 782 (1978) (finding that defendant credit bureau’s failure to reveal its “detective agency” like practices did not violate FCA because the government never “made it clear that it would not employ detective agencies when it contracted for the work”). 9 Therefore, we conclude that while Luckey has produced evidence from which a trier of fact could infer that Baxter was utilizing outdated procedures in screening its plasma samples, there is no evidence that would allow …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States Ex Rel. Roby v. Boeing Co.
Weinberger v. Equifax, 557 F.2d 456 (1977), which acknowledged that Congress "specifically provides for informer’s suits.” Id. at 460; see also, Hopkins v. Actions, Inc. of Brazoria County, No. CIV.A.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States Ex Rel. James M. Thompson v. Columbia/hca Healthcare Corporation
Weinberger v. Equifax, Inc., 557 F.2d 456, 460-61 (5th Cir.1977), we held that claims submitted by a government contractor who allegedly violated the Anti-Pinkerton Act 2 did not necessarily constitute false or fraudulent claims under the FCA.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Hopkins v. Actions, Inc. of Brazoria County
Weinberger v. Equifax, Inc., 557 F.2d 456, 460 (5th Cir.1977).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Thompson v. Columbia/HCA Hlthcar
Weinberger v. Equifax, Inc., 557 F.2d 456, 460-61 (5th Cir.1977), we held that claims submitted by a government contractor who allegedly violated the Anti-Pinkerton Act2 did not necessarily constitute false or fraudulent claims under the FCA.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States Ex Rel. Riley v. St. Luke's Episcopal Hospital
Weinberger v. Equifax, Inc., 557 F.2d 456, 460 (5th Cir.1977).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States Ex Rel. Thompson v. Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corp.
Equifax, 557 F.2d at 459.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Nobelpharma AB v. Implant Innovations, Inc.
Weinberger v. Equifax, 557 F.2d 456, 463 (5th Cir.1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1035 , 98 S.Ct. 768 , 54 L.Ed.2d 782 (1978) (relative’s salary interest as an associate insufficient to require recusal); Wilmington Towing Co., Inc., v. Cape Fear Towing Co., Inc., 624 F.Supp. 1210, 1211 (E.D.N.C.1986) (same, summer associate); Miller Indus., Inc. v. Caterpillar Tractor Co., 516 F.Supp. 84, 86 (S.D.Ala.1980) (same, of counsel); Keene Corp. v. Rogers, 863 S.W.2d 168, 172 (Tex.Ct.App.1993) (same); see also U.S. v. Tierney, 947 F.2d 854, 865 (8th Cir.1991); Welch v. Bd. of Directors of Wildwood Gol…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Harold P. DAHLGREN Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellant
75-3263.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Aug 12, 1977.
Frank D. McCown, U. S. Atty., Fort Worth, Tex., Scott P. Crampton, Asst. Atty. Gen., Wm. A. Friedlander, Atty., Murray S. Horwitz, Atty., Tax Div., Gilbert E. Andrews, Chief, Appellate Sec., U. S. Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., Martha Joe Stroud, Asst. U. S. Atty., Dallas, Tex., for defendant-appellant., John L. Hauer, Robert E. Goodfriend, Clarice M. Davis, Dallas, Tex., for plaintiffs-appellees.
Tuttle, Wisdom, Coleman.
Published
PER CURIAM:
It appears that one issue comprehended within the original suit, that is the question whether Dahlgren had “constructively transferred” his interest in the patent long before the purported sale with which this case is now concerned, was decided in favor of the taxpayer by the jury in response to special interrogatories. Petitioner contends that it is appropriate, if this Court remands the case to the trial court to provide that that issue is no longer to be tried and that the new trial shall be limited to the valuation question dealt with in our opinion. We conclude that this is an appropriate request and on remand the issue of possible transfer of the patent in May of 1959 shall be taken as settled in favor of the taxpayer and shall not again be submitted to the jury.
The petition for rehearing is DENIED.