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.
3 canonical passages across 2 cases, quoted by 10 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 United States Ex Rel. Bettis v. Odebrecht Contractors of California, Inc..
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | United States Ex Rel. Bettis v. Odebrecht Contractors of California, Inc. Anchor | green | “for each claim submitted to the government under a contract which was procured by fraud, even in the absence of evidence that the claims were fraudulent in themselves.” | 4 |
| 2 | United States Ex Rel. Bettis v. Odebrecht Contractors of California, Inc. | green | “although the focus of the fca is on false 'claims,' courts have employed a 'fraud-in-the-inducement' theory to establish liability under the act for each claim submitted to the government under a contract which was procured by fraud, even in the absence of evidence that the clai…” | 3 |
| 3 | United States Ex Rel. Tran v. Computer Sciences Corp. | green | “(1) the defendant submitted or caused to be submitted a claim to the government, (2) the claim was false, and (3) the defendant knew the claim was false.” | 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.