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.
4 canonical passages across 2 cases, quoted by 14 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Guilfoile v. Shields.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Guilfoile v. Shields Anchor | green | “if there is a sufficient causal connection between an aks violation and a claim submitted to the federal government, that claim is false within the meaning of the fca.” | 5 |
| 2 | United States v. McClatchey | green | “difficult factual determination” | 3 |
| 3 | United States v. McClatchey | green | “cannot be convicted merely because he hoped or expected or believed that referrals may ensue from remuneration that was designed wholly for other purposes.” | 3 |
| 4 | Guilfoile v. Shields | green | “aks violation that results in a federal health care payment is a per se false claim under the fca.” | 3 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.