fraudulent claim in New Mexico

2013Id. at 917-18 .

2013Id. at 917- 18.

2019Finally, "when the Legislature includes a particular word in one portion of a statute and omits it from another portion of that statute, such omission is presumed to be intentional." State v. Jade G. , 2007-NMSC-010 , ¶ 28, 141 N.M. 284 , 154 P.3d 659 . {16} As previously stated, Section 44-9-9(D), the section at issue here, provides: Upon motion of the attorney general or political subdivision, a court may, in its discretion, dismiss an action brought pursuant to Section 44-9-5 ... if the elements of the alleged false or fraudulent claim have been publicly disclosed in the news media or in a

2019Finally, "when the Legislature includes a particular word in one portion of a statute and omits it from another portion of that statute, such omission is presumed to be intentional." State v. Jade G. , 2007-NMSC-010 , ¶ 28, 141 N.M. 284 , 154 P.3d 659 . {16} As previously stated, Section 44-9-9(D), the section at issue here, provides: Upon motion of the attorney general or political subdivision, a court may, in its discretion, dismiss an action brought pursuant to Section 44-9-5 ... if the elements of the alleged false or fraudulent claim have been publicly disclosed in the news media or in a

2016Husband argued that Wife’s conduct was aimed at denying the community the benefit of insurance coverage under the Allstate policy, and thus she should not be rewarded with any interest in the proceeds. {10} Husband’s arguments related to the insurance proceeds dispute rested primarily on Delph v. Potomac Insurance Co., 1980-NMSC-140 , 95 N.M. 257 , 620 P.2d 1282 .

2016Husband argued that Wife’s conduct was aimed at denying the community the benefit of insurance coverage under the Allstate policy, and thus she should not be rewarded with any interest in the proceeds. {10} Husband’s arguments related to the insurance proceeds dispute rested primarily on Delph v. Potomac Insurance Co., 1980-NMSC-140 , 95 N.M. 257 , 620 P.2d 1282 .

2014In relevant part, Section 44-9-3 of the Act provides that: A. A person shall not: (1) knowingly present, or cause to be presented, to an employee, officer[,] or agent of the [S]tate or to a contractor, grantee[,] or other recipient of state funds a false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval; (2) knowingly make or use, or cause to be made or used, a false misleading[,] or fraudulent record or statement to obtain or support the approval of or the payment on a false or fraudulent claim[.] 1 The district court proceedings and the briefing in this case occurred prior to our recognition in Pi

1996The Dillon court’s rationale for doing away with the zone-of-danger requirement was that there was minimal danger of a fraudulent claim when a parent witnessed a child being severely injured. “[N]o one can seriously question that fear or grief for one’s child is as likely to cause physical injury as concern over one’s own well-being.” Dillon, 69 Cal.Rptr. at 77 , 441 P.2d at 917 .

1996The Dillon court’s rationale for doing away with the zone-of-danger requirement was that there was minimal danger of a fraudulent claim when a parent witnessed a child being severely injured. “[N]o one can seriously question that fear or grief for one’s child is as likely to cause physical injury as concern over one’s own well-being.” Dillon, 69 Cal.Rptr. at 77 , 441 P.2d at 917 .

1977In Montague , the judge said: If the plaintiff's construction is to receive judicial recognition no vendor can ever protect himself against a false and fraudulent claim respecting a purported prior representation concerning the condition of the premises which are the subject of the sale and one can readily visualize the opening of a fertile field for the perpetration of fraud. [ 43 N.Y.S.2d at 326 ].

1977The purpose of the provision is to protect the defendant "against a false and fraudulent claim respecting a purported prior representation concerning the condition of the premises... ." [ 43 N.Y.S.2d at 326 ].