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.
5 canonical passages across 2 cases, quoted by 38 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. Uhlig v. Fluor Corp..
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | United States Ex Rel. Uhlig v. Fluor Corp. Anchor | green | “(1) the employee in good faith believes, and (2) a reasonable employee in the same or similar circumstances might believe, that the employer is committing fraud against the government.” | 10 |
| 2 | In Re Pharmaceutical Industry Average Wholesale Price Litigation | green | “from the markup charged by wholesalers over their actual acquisition cost.” | 7 |
| 3 | In Re Pharmaceutical Industry Average Wholesale Price Litigation | green | “a branded drug faced competition from a therapeutic equivalent . . . the drug manufacturer could manipulate the spread - the difference between the actual selling price and the awp based reimbursement - to make the drugs more attractive to a physician,” | 7 |
| 4 | United States Ex Rel. Uhlig v. Fluor Corp. | green | “at the time of the alleged protected activity.” | 7 |
| 5 | United States Ex Rel. Uhlig v. Fluor Corp. | green | “in the same or similar circumstance” | 7 |
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.