Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
7 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 2004–2026 6 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Texas courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
United States ex rel. Heath v. AT & T, Inc.green2 sentences2025LaFountain “cannot avoid” the TMFPA’s first-to-file bar “by simply adding factual details . . . to the essential or material elements of a fraud claim against the same defendant described in a prior complaint.” Branch, 560 F.3d at 378 ; see also Heath, 791 F.3d at 116 (holding 46 actions are still “related” even if they “incorporate somewhat different details”) (citations omitted). 2025Health v. AT&T, Inc., 791 F.3d 112, 121 (D.C. | 2 | 2 |
United States v. Planned Parenthood of Houstongreen2 sentences2025The Fifth Circuit has held that “[t]he TFMPA’s first-to-file bar operates the same way as the FCA’s first-to-file bar.” U.S. ex rel. v. Planned Parenthood of Houston, 570 F. App’x 386 , 389 n.3 (5th Cir. 2014). 2025See United States v. Planned Parenthood of Houston, 570 F. App’x 386, 390 (5th Cir. 2014) (“the first-to-file analysis requires comparison of the two original complaints”); United States ex rel. | 1 | 3 |
US EX REL. BRANCH CONSULTANTS v. Allstate Ins. Co.green2 sentences2025LaFountain “cannot avoid” the TMFPA’s first-to-file bar “by simply adding factual details . . . to the essential or material elements of a fraud claim against the same defendant described in a prior complaint.” Branch, 560 F.3d at 378 ; see also Heath, 791 F.3d at 116 (holding 46 actions are still “related” even if they “incorporate somewhat different details”) (citations omitted). 2021Co., 560 F.3d 371, 378 (5th Cir. 2009) (holding that the relator cannot avoid the first-to-file bar ‘by simply adding factual details . . . to the essential or material elements of a fraud claim against the same defendant’”)). | 1 | 2 |
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuitgreen1 sentence2025LaCorte v. SmithKline Beecham Clinical Labs., Inc., 149 F.3d 227, 234 (3d Cir. 1998) (“[D]uplicative claims do not help reduce fraud or return funds to the federal fisc, since once the government knows the essential facts of a fraudulent scheme, it has enough information to discover related frauds.”). | 1 | 1 |
cluster 767847green1 sentence2025Code § 36.106 (requiring factual determination of whether allegations were based on facts underlying pending action), .113(b) (requiring factual determination of whether allegations were already publicly disclosed).” State v. Ellis, 681 S.W.3d at 514 (citing United States v. Millenium Labs., Inc., 923 F.3d 240, 253 (1st Cir. 2019) (where the court “proceed[ed] claim-by-claim” to determine if the FCA’s first-to- file bar, 3730(b)(5), applied) (citation omitted); Merena, 205 F.3d at 102 (holding a “court must conduct a claim-by-claim analysis in order to determine if” the first-to- file bar appl | 1 | 1 |
cluster 304033green1 sentence2025If a “later-filed complaint alleges the same material or essential elements of fraud described in a pending qui tam action,” they are “related,” even where the later-filed complaint includes 10 See, e.g., de Rodulfa v. United States, 461 F.2d 1240, 1253 (D.C. | 1 | 1 |
McGuire v. Estate of Robert Cunninghamgreen2 sentences2025Code § 36.106 (requiring factual determination of whether allegations were based on facts underlying pending action), .113(b) (requiring factual determination of whether allegations were already publicly disclosed).” State v. Ellis, 681 S.W.3d at 514 (citing United States v. Millenium Labs., Inc., 923 F.3d 240, 253 (1st Cir. 2019) (where the court “proceed[ed] claim-by-claim” to determine if the FCA’s first-to- file bar, 3730(b)(5), applied) (citation omitted); Merena, 205 F.3d at 102 (holding a “court must conduct a claim-by-claim analysis in order to determine if” the first-to- file bar appl 2025Code § 36.106 (requiring factual determination of whether allegations were based on facts underlying pending action), .113(b) (requiring factual determination of whether allegations were already publicly disclosed).” State v. Ellis, 681 S.W.3d at 514 (citing United States v. Millenium Labs., Inc., 923 F.3d 240, 253 (1st Cir. 2019) (where the court “proceed[ed] claim-by-claim” to determine if the FCA’s first-to- file bar, 3730(b)(5), applied) (citation omitted); Merena, 205 F.3d at 102 (holding a “court must conduct a claim-by-claim analysis in order to determine if” the first-to- file bar appl | 1 | 1 |
United States ex rel. Wood v. Allergan, Inc.green2 sentences2025Wood v. Allergan, Inc., 899 F.3d 163, 167 (2d Cir. 2018) (quoting U.S. ex rel. 2025Wood, 899 F.3d at 169 (quoting U.S. ex rel. | 1 | 1 |
HUE NGUYEN v. Chapagreen1 sentence2024Code § 13.001(b); Hue Nguyen v. Chapa, 305 S.W.3d 316, 323 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2009, pet. denied). | 1 | 1 |
Wyatt v. Shaw Plumbing Co.green1 sentence2004See Wyatt , 760 S.W.2d at 248 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Greenlaw v. United States
green
1 sentence2026We next consider whether this suit is “based on the facts underlying” LaFountain’s still-pending 2012 suit and therefore is 5 See also City of Houston v. Rodriguez, 704 S.W.3d 462 , 471 n.35 (Tex. 2024); In re Off. of Att’y Gen., 702 S.W.3d 360 , 366 (Tex. 2024); Powell v. City of Houston, 628 S.W.3d 838 , 843 (Tex. 2021) (“We do not seek out issues but ‘wait for the cases to come to us, and when they do we normally decide only questions presented by the parties.’” (quoting In re Abbott, 601 S.W.3d 802 , 809-810 (Tex. 2020) (quoting Greenlaw, 554 U.S. at 244 ))). 12 prevented from proceeding b | 1 | 2026–2026 |
United States Ex. Rel. Kelly v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp.
green
1 sentence2025The first-to-file bar “furthers the FCA’s goal of avoiding piecemeal and duplicative litigation that does not advance the [G]overnment’s investigation of alleged fraud.” Id. at 11 ; see also U.S. ex rel. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
in Re Xerox Corporation and Xerox State Healthcare, LLC F/K/A Acs State Healthcare, Llc
green
2 sentences2021As a result, our discussion of the first-to- file bar is only provided as context for the parties’ arguments. 3 TMFPA thus coaxes wrongdoers to divulge potentially incriminating information both through penalty avoidance and by allowing an ‘original source’ of information to pursue a TMFPA bounty to the exclusion of other potential relators.” Xerox Corp., 555 S.W.3d at 536–37 (quoting TEX. 2021As a result, our discussion of the first-to- file bar is only provided as context for the parties’ arguments. 3 TMFPA thus coaxes wrongdoers to divulge potentially incriminating information both through penalty avoidance and by allowing an ‘original source’ of information to pursue a TMFPA bounty to the exclusion of other potential relators.” Xerox Corp., 555 S.W.3d at 536–37 (quoting TEX. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.