United States v. Caremark, Inc. (2011)
green
· 83 citation events
across 17 courts.
Showing the 50 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 2011 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
201120182026
Sort:
By significance ·
Most recent
green
Charles Cook v. Admiral Insurance Company (2011)
United States v. Caremark, Inc., 634 F.3d 808, 814 (5th Cir.2011) (citation omitted). .
green
Jeffrey Simoneaux v. E I DuPont de Nemours & Co. (2016)
Those are distinct legal theories that rely on different authorities. 30 Yamaha, 516 U.S. at 205 (citation omitted); Accord Koch Foods of Miss., L.L.C. v. 26 EEOC, 838 F.3d 540 , 548 n.16 (5th Cir. 2016) (citing cases). 27 Castellanos-Contreras, 622 F.3d at 399 ; see also Yamaha, 516 U.S. at 205 (“[T]he appellate court may address any issue fairly included within the certified order . . . .”) (emphasis added); United States v. Caremark, Inc., 634 F.3d 808 , 811 n.1 (5th Cir.…
“[W]here an issue is not fully developed in the district court, we may decline to reach it [on interlocutory appeal].”
green
Ericsson, Inc. v. D-Link Systems, Inc. (2014)
United States v. Caremark, Inc., 634 F.3d 808, 814 (5th Cir.2011).
green
Elijah Group v. City of Leon Valley, Tex. (2011)
United States v. Caremark, Inc., 634 F.3d 808, 814-15 (5th Cir.2011) (citation omitted). 2 .
green
Fintiv, Inc. v. Apple Inc. (2025)
Cir. 2011) (citing United States v. Caremark, Inc., 634 F.3d 808, 814 (5th Cir. 2011)).
green
Realty Income v. Golden Palatka (2022)
P. 56(a). 10 United States v. Caremark, Inc., 634 F.3d 808, 814 (5th Cir. 2011). 11 Rolison v. Fryar, 204 So.3d 725, 736 (Miss. 2016). 12 In re Itron, Inc., 883 F.3d 553, 565 (5th Cir. 2018). 4 Case: 21-60567 Document: 00516317869 Page: 5 Date Filed: 05/13/2022 No. 21-60567 reasonableness of RIC’s mitigation efforts, relying only on El-Hawary’s conclusory and unsubstantiated statement that RIC should have been able to secure a new tenant earlier.
green
L.A. Pub Ins Adjusters v. Nelson (2021)
United States v. Caremark, Inc., 634 F.3d 808, 814 (5th Cir. 2011).
green
L.A. Pub Ins Adjusters v. Nelson (2021)
United States v. Caremark, Inc., 634 F.3d 808, 814 (5th Cir. 2011).
green
Fireblok Ip Holdings, LLC v. Hilti, Inc. (2021)
The Fifth Circuit reviews a summary judgment decision de novo, “applying the same standard used by the district court.” United States v. Care- mark, Inc., 634 F.3d 808, 814 (5th Cir. 2011).
green
Bank of America, N.A. v. Shaune Stauffer (2018)
United States v. Caremark, Inc., 634 F.3d 808, 814 (5th Cir. 2011).
green
Abbott v. BP Exploration & Production, Inc. (2017)
We view the evidence on the record “in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.” United States v. Caremark, Inc., 634 F.3d 808, 814 (5th Cir. 2011) (citing United Fire & Cas.
citing United Fire & Cas. Co. v. Hixson Bros., Inc., 453 F.3d 283, 285 (5th Cir. 2006)
United States v. Caremark, Inc., 634 F.3d 808, 814 (5th Cir.2011).
green
Paul Brooks v. Firestone Polymers, L.L.C. (2016)
United States v. Caremark, Inc., 634 F.3d 808, 814 (5th Cir. 2011).
green
Timmy Vuncannon v. United States (2013)
United States v. Caremark, Inc., 634 F.3d 808, 814 (5th Cir.2011). 2 .
United States v. Caremark, Inc., 634 F.3d 808, 814 (5th Cir.2011). 8 .Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). 9 .
United States v. Caremark, Inc., 634 F.3d 808, 814 (5th Cir.2011).
green
Raytheon Co. v. Indigo Systems Corp. (2012)
“Applying Fifth Circuit law, we review the district court’s decision to grant summary judgment de novo, applying the same standard as the district court.” Absolute Software, Inc. v. Stealth Signal, Inc., 659 F.3d 1121, 1129 (Fed.Cir.2011) (citing United States v. Caremark, Inc., 634 F.3d 808, 814 (5th Cir.2011)).
green
A. Ballard v. Devon Louisiana Corp. (2012)
Montana Law and Contract Interpretation 8 United States v. Caremark, Inc., 634 F.3d 808, 814 (5th Cir. 2011). 9 FED.
green
Ballard v. Devon Energy Production Co., LP (2012)
United States v. Caremark, Inc., 634 F.3d 808, 814 (5th Cir.2011). 9 .
green
Hunter v. Owens (2012)
United States v. Caremark, Inc., 634 F.3d 808, 814 (5th Cir.2011). .
green
Donnysius Kador v. City of New Roads (2012)
United States v. Caremark, Inc., 634 F.3d 808, 814 (5th Cir.2011).
United States v. Caremark, Inc., 634 F.3d 808, 814 (5th Cir.2011). 5 .
green
Davis-Lynch v. Nancy Moreno (2012)
Motion Summary Judgment A. Standard of Review We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the same legal standards as the district court.26 Summary judgment should be granted if “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant 26 United States v. Caremark, Inc., 634 F.3d 808, 814 (5th Cir. 2011). 12 No. 10-20859 is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”27 A genuine issue of material fact exists when the evidence is such that…
green
Davis-Lynch v. Nancy Moreno (2012)
Motion Summary Judgment A. Standard of Review We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the same legal standards as the district court.26 Summary judgment should be granted if “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant 26 United States v. Caremark, Inc., 634 F.3d 808, 814 (5th Cir. 2011). 12 Case: 10-20859 Document: 00511719524 Page: 13 Date Filed: 01/10/2012 No. 10-20859 is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”27 A…
green
Davis-Lynch, Inc. v. Moreno (2012)
United States v. Caremark, Inc., 634 F.3d 808, 814 (5th Cir.2011). .
green
Absolute Software, Inc. v. Stealth Signal, Inc. (2011)
United States v. Caremark, Inc., 634 F.3d 808, 814 (5th Cir.2011).
green
Michael King, Jr. v. Bluecross Blueshield of Al, E (2011)
United States v. Caremark, Inc., 634 F.3d 808, 814 (5th Cir.2011).
green
Blue Gordon, C v. v. Quicksilver Jet Sales, Inc. (2011)
United States v. Caremark, Inc., 634 F.3d 808, 814 (5th Cir.2011).
United States v. Caremark, Inc., 634 F.3d 808, 814 (5th Cir.2011) (citation omitted). 2 .
green
Regions Equipment Finance Corp v. AT 2400 (2011)
The provisions of this Agreement and the other Loan Documents to which Borrower or any Guarantor is a party may be amended or waived only by an instrument in writing signed by the parties hereto.3 1 United States v. Caremark, Inc., 634 F.3d 808, 814 (5th Cir. 2011) (citation omitted). 2 FED .
citation omitted
green
Thomas v. Mercy Care (2023)
The Court agrees with the Fifth 22 Circuit’s analysis in United States v. Caremark, Inc., 634 F.3d 808, 815 (5th Cir. 2011).
Id. (“There are also grounds to pierce the veil of Ross Investments, Inc. to get to defendant Weisel.”).
“There are also grounds to pierce the veil of Ross Investments, Inc. to get to defendant Weisel.”
United States v. Caremark, Inc., 634 F.3d 808, 814 (5th Cir. 2011); Hidden Cove Park & Marina v. Lexington Ins.
Relators insist that this unlawful cost-shifting is actionable because the FCA “does not require that the statement impair the defendant’s obligation; instead, it requires that the statement impair ‘an obligation to pay or transmit money or property to the government.’” U.S. v. Caremark, Inc., 634 F.3d 808, 817 (Sth Cir. 2011).
green
Frey v. Health Management Systems Inc (2021)
United States v. Caremark, Inc., 634 F.3d 808, 815 (5th Cir. 2011).
green
Payne v. City of San Antonio, Texas (2020)
United States v. Caremark, Inc., 634 F.3d 808, 814 (5th Cir. 2011).
green
USA v. E-BIOFUELS, LLC (2020)
Liability under this subsection covers not only obligations of the defendants themselves but also covers “knowingly making a false statement that will cause a third party to impair its obligation to the federal government.” United States v. Caremark, Inc., 634 F.3d 808, 817 (5th Cir. 2011).
Thayer v. Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, 765 F.3d 914 , 916 n. 1 (8th Cir.2014) (Iowa FCA); United States v. Caremark, Inc., 634 F.3d 808, 820-22 (5th Cir.2011) (finding “reverse” false claims actionable under Arkansas statute even absent specifically designated provision); Mendiondo v. Centinela Hosp.
green
Pencheng Si v. Laogai Research Foundation Foundation (2014)
United States v. Caremark, Inc., 634 F.3d 808, 814-15 (5th Cir.2011).
See 31 U.S.C. § 3729 (a)(1)(A, B); United States v. Caremark, Inc., 634 F.3d 808, 814-17 (5th Cir.2011) (holding that the similarly worded language of the pre-2010 FCA allowed a defendant to be liable because “its false statements caused the state Medicaid agencies to make false statements to the Government”).
green
Lynn Ferrant v. Lowe's Home Centers, Inc. (2012)
See United States v. Caremark, Inc., 634 F.3d 808, 814 (5th Cir.2011).
Melder v. Allstate Corp., 404 F.3d 328, 330-31 (5th Cir. 2005); see also Caremark, 634 F.3d at 815 n.8. 29 .
green
Leonora Murray v. General Motors, L.L.C., e (2012)
See United States v. Caremark, 634 F.3d 808, 814 (5th Cir.2011).
green
Frey v. Health Management Systems Inc (2024)
See United States v. Caremark, Inc., 634 F.3d 808, 817 (5th Cir. 2011).
green
Frey v. Health Management Systems Inc (2024)
See United States v. Caremark, Inc., 634 F.3d 808, 817 (5th Cir. 2011).
green
United States Ex Rel. Jamison v. McKesson Corp. (2011)
See United States v. Caremark, Inc., 634 F.3d 808, 814 (5th Cir.2011). 9 .
green
Wheeler v. UMB Bank, N.A. (2024)
Section 1292(b) permits a district court, within its discretion, to certify an interlocutory appeal where (1) a “controlling question of law” is involved, (2) there is “substantial ground for difference of opinion” about the question of law, and (3) immediate appeal will “materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation.” 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (b); see United States v. Caremark, Inc., 634 F.3d 808, 814 (5th Cir. 2011) (Section 1292(b), “gives a district judge discret…
Section 1292(b), “gives a district judge discretion to certify an order.”
green
Air Vent, Inc. v. Powermax Electric Co., Ltd. (2023)
See U.S. v. Caremark, Inc., 634 F.3d 808, 814 (5th Cir. 2011).
See United States v. Caremark, Inc., 634 F.3d 808, 817 (5th Cir.2011) (“The statute does not require that the statement impair the defendant’s obligation; instead, it requires that the statement impair ‘an obligation). 5 C.
See United States v. Caremark, Inc., 634 F.3d 808, 817 (5th Cir.2011) (“The statute does not require that the statement impair the defendant’s obligation; instead, it requires that the statement impair ‘an obligation > >’) 5 C.