ILCS » Chapter 740 · Act 175
Illinois Compiled Statutes

740 ILCS 175/4 (2026)

Civil actions for false claims

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(740 ILCS 175/4) (from Ch. 127, par. 4104)
    Sec. 4. Civil actions for false claims.
    (a) Responsibilities of the Attorney General. The Attorney General shall diligently investigate a civil violation under Section 3. If the Attorney General finds that a person violated or is violating Section 3, the Attorney General may bring a civil action under this Section against the person.
    The State shall receive an amount for reasonable expenses that the court finds to have been necessarily incurred by the Attorney General, including reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. All such expenses, fees, and costs shall be awarded against the defendant. The court may award amounts from the proceeds of an action or settlement that it considers appropriate to any governmental entity or program that has been adversely affected by a defendant. The Attorney General, if necessary, shall direct the State Treasurer to make a disbursement of funds as provided in court orders or settlement agreements.
    (b) Actions by private persons.
        (1) A person may bring a civil action for a violation
    
of Section 3 for the person and for the State. The action shall be brought in the name of the State. The action may be dismissed only if the court and the Attorney General give written consent to the dismissal and their reasons for consenting.
        (2) A copy of the complaint and written disclosure of
    
substantially all material evidence and information the person possesses shall be served on the State. The complaint shall be filed in camera, shall remain under seal for at least 60 days, and shall not be served on the defendant until the court so orders. The State may elect to intervene and proceed with the action within 60 days after it receives both the complaint and the material evidence and information.
        (3) The State may, for good cause shown, move the
    
court for extensions of the time during which the complaint remains under seal under paragraph (2). Any such motions may be supported by affidavits or other submissions in camera. The defendant shall not be required to respond to any complaint filed under this Section until 20 days after the complaint is unsealed and served upon the defendant.
        (4) Before the expiration of the 60-day period or any
    
extensions obtained under paragraph (3), the State shall:
            (A) proceed with the action, in which case the
        
action shall be conducted by the State; or
            (B) notify the court that it declines to take
        
over the action, in which case the person bringing the action shall have the right to conduct the action.
        (5) When a person brings an action under this
    
subsection (b), no person other than the State may intervene or bring a related action based on the facts underlying the pending action.
    (c) Rights of the parties to Qui Tam actions.
        (1) If the State proceeds with the action, it shall
    
have the primary responsibility for prosecuting the action, and shall not be bound by an act of the person bringing the action. Such person shall have the right to continue as a party to the action, subject to the limitations set forth in paragraph (2).
        (2)(A) The State may dismiss the action
    
notwithstanding the objections of the person initiating the action if the person has been notified by the State of the filing of the motion and the court has provided the person with an opportunity for a hearing on the motion.
        (B) The State may settle the action with the
    
defendant notwithstanding the objections of the person initiating the action if the court determines, after a hearing, that the proposed settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable under all the circumstances. Upon a showing of good cause, such hearing may be held in camera.
        (C) Upon a showing by the State that unrestricted
    
participation during the course of the litigation by the person initiating the action would interfere with or unduly delay the State's prosecution of the case, or would be repetitious, irrelevant, or for purposes of harassment, the court may, in its discretion, impose limitations on the person's participation, such as:
            (i) limiting the number of witnesses the person
        
may call:
            (ii) limiting the length of the testimony of such
        
witnesses;
            (iii) limiting the person's cross-examination of
        
witnesses; or
            (iv) otherwise limiting the participation by the
        
person in the litigation.
        (D) Upon a showing by the defendant that unrestricted
    
participation during the course of the litigation by the person initiating the action would be for purposes of harassment or would cause the defendant undue burden or unnecessary expense, the court may limit the participation by the person in the litigation.
        (3) If the State elects not to proceed with the
    
action, the person who initiated the action shall have the right to conduct the action. If the State so requests, it shall be served with copies of all pleadings filed in the action and shall be supplied with copies of all deposition transcripts (at the State's expense). When a person proceeds with the action, the court, without limiting the status and rights of the person initiating the action, may nevertheless permit the State to intervene at a later date upon a showing of good cause.
        (4) Whether or not the State proceeds with the
    
action, upon a showing by the State that certain actions of discovery by the person initiating the action would interfere with the State's investigation or prosecution of a criminal or civil matter arising out of the same facts, the court may stay such discovery for a period of not more than 60 days. Such a showing shall be conducted in camera. The court may extend the 60-day period upon a further showing in camera that the State has pursued the criminal or civil investigation or proceedings with reasonable diligence and any proposed discovery in the civil action will interfere with the ongoing criminal or civil investigation or proceedings.
        (5) Notwithstanding subsection (b), the State may
    
elect to pursue its claim through any alternate remedy available to the State, including any administrative proceeding to determine a civil money penalty. If any such alternate remedy is pursued in another proceeding, the person initiating the action shall have the same rights in such proceeding as such person would have had if the action had continued under this Section. Any finding of fact or conclusion of law made in such other proceeding that has become final shall be conclusive on all parties to an action under this Section. For purposes of the preceding sentence, a finding or conclusion is final if it has been finally determined on appeal to the appropriate court, if all time for filing such an appeal with respect to the finding or conclusion has expired, or if the finding or conclusion is not subject to judicial review.
    (d) Award to Qui Tam plaintiff.
        (1) If the State proceeds with an action brought by a
    
person under subsection (b), such person shall, subject to the second sentence of this paragraph, receive at least 15% but not more than 25% of the proceeds of the action or settlement of the claim, depending upon the extent to which the person substantially contributed to the prosecution of the action. Where the action is one which the court finds to be based primarily on disclosures of specific information (other than information provided by the person bringing the action) relating to allegations or transactions in a criminal, civil, or administrative hearing, in a legislative, administrative, or Auditor General's report, hearing, audit, or investigation, or from the news media, the court may award such sums as it considers appropriate, but in no case more than 10% of the proceeds, taking into account the significance of the information and the role of the person bringing the action in advancing the case to litigation. Any payment to a person under the first or second sentence of this paragraph (1) shall be made from the proceeds. Any such person shall also receive an amount for reasonable expenses which the court finds to have been necessarily incurred, plus reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. The State shall also receive an amount for reasonable expenses which the court finds to have been necessarily incurred by the Attorney General, including reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. All such expenses, fees, and costs shall be awarded against the defendant. The court may award amounts from the proceeds of an action or settlement that it considers appropriate to any governmental entity or program that has been adversely affected by a defendant. The Attorney General, if necessary, shall direct the State Treasurer to make a disbursement of funds as provided in court orders or settlement agreements.
        (2) If the State does not proceed with an action
    
under this Section, the person bringing the action or settling the claim shall receive an amount which the court decides is reasonable for collecting the civil penalty and damages. The amount shall be not less than 25% and not more than 30% of the proceeds of the action or settlement and shall be paid out of such proceeds. Such person shall also receive an amount for reasonable expenses which the court finds to have been necessarily incurred, plus reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. All such expenses, fees, and costs shall be awarded against the defendant. The court may award amounts from the proceeds of an action or settlement that it considers appropriate to any governmental entity or program that has been adversely affected by a defendant. The Attorney General, if necessary, shall direct the State Treasurer to make a disbursement of funds as provided in court orders or settlement agreements.
        (3) Whether or not the State proceeds with the
    
action, if the court finds that the action was brought by a person who planned and initiated the violation of Section 3 upon which the action was brought, then the court may, to the extent the court considers appropriate, reduce the share of the proceeds of the action which the person would otherwise receive under paragraph (1) or (2) of this subsection (d), taking into account the role of that person in advancing the case to litigation and any relevant circumstances pertaining to the violation. If the person bringing the action is convicted of criminal conduct arising from his or her role in the violation of Section 3, that person shall be dismissed from the civil action and shall not receive any share of the proceeds of the action. Such dismissal shall not prejudice the right of the State to continue the action, represented by the Attorney General.
        (4) If the State does not proceed with the action and
    
the person bringing the action conducts the action, the court may award to the defendant its reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses if the defendant prevails in the action and the court finds that the claim of the person bringing the action was clearly frivolous, clearly vexatious, or brought primarily for purposes of harassment.
    (e) Certain actions barred.
        (1) No court shall have jurisdiction over an action
    
brought by a former or present member of the Guard under subsection (b) of this Section against a member of the Guard arising out of such person's service in the Guard.
        (2)(A) No court shall have jurisdiction over an
    
action brought under subsection (b) against a member of the General Assembly, a member of the judiciary, or an exempt official if the action is based on evidence or information known to the State when the action was brought.
        (B) For purposes of this paragraph (2), "exempt
    
official" means any of the following officials in State service: directors of departments established under the Civil Administrative Code of Illinois, the Adjutant General, the Assistant Adjutant General, the Director of the State Emergency Services and Disaster Agency, members of the boards and commissions, and all other positions appointed by the Governor by and with the consent of the Senate.
        (3) In no event may a person bring an action under
    
subsection (b) which is based upon allegations or transactions which are the subject of a civil suit or an administrative civil money penalty proceeding in which the State is already a party.
        (4)(A) The court shall dismiss an action or claim
    
under this Section, unless opposed by the State, if substantially the same allegations or transactions as alleged in the action or claim were publicly disclosed:
            (i) in a criminal, civil, or administrative
        
hearing in which the State or its agent is a party;
            (ii) in a State legislative, State Auditor
        
General, or other State report, hearing, audit, or investigation; or
            (iii) from the news media,
    unless the action is brought by the Attorney General or
    
the person bringing the action is an original source of the information.
        (B) For purposes of this paragraph (4), "original
    
source" means an individual who either (i) prior to a public disclosure under subparagraph (A) of this paragraph (4), has voluntarily disclosed to the State the information on which allegations or transactions in a claim are based, or (ii) has knowledge that is independent of and materially adds to the publicly disclosed allegations or transactions, and who has voluntarily provided the information to the State before filing an action under this Section.
    (f) State not liable for certain expenses. The State is not liable for expenses which a person incurs in bringing an action under this Section.
    (g) Relief from retaliatory actions.
        (1) In general, any employee, contractor, or agent
    
shall be entitled to all relief necessary to make that employee, contractor, or agent whole, if that employee, contractor, or agent is discharged, demoted, suspended, threatened, harassed, or in any other manner discriminated against in the terms and conditions of employment because of lawful acts done by the employee, contractor, agent, or associated others in furtherance of an action under this Section or other efforts to stop one or more violations of this Act.
        (2) Relief under paragraph (1) shall include
    
reinstatement with the same seniority status that the employee, contractor, or agent would have had but for the discrimination, 2 times the amount of back pay, interest on the back pay, and compensation for any special damages sustained as a result of the discrimination, including litigation costs and reasonable attorneys' fees. An action under this subsection (g) may be brought in the appropriate circuit court for the relief provided in this subsection (g).
        (3) A civil action under this subsection may not be
    
brought more than 3 years after the date when the retaliation occurred.
(Source: P.A. 102-538, eff. 8-20-21; 103-145, eff. 10-1-23.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 75 cases (17 in the last 5 years), 2001–2025 · leading case: Scachitti v. UBS Fin. Servs., 831 N.E.2d 544 (Ill. 2005).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Scachitti v. UBS Fin. Servs., 831 N.E.2d 544 (Ill. 2005). · cites it 30× “740 ILCS 175/4(a) (West 2002). A private person may also bring a qui tam civil action “for the person and for the State” (emphasis added), “in the name of the State.”
State Ex Rel. Beeler, Schad & Diamond, P.C. v. Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse Corp., 860 N.E.2d 423 (Ill. App. Ct. 2006). · cites it 21× “740 ILCS 175/4(a) (West 2002). A private person, referred to as a “relator,” may also bring a civil action in the name of the state for a violation of the Act, for that person and for the state.”
State ex rel. Leibowitz v. Fam. Vision Care, LLC, 2020 IL 124754 (Ill. 2020). · cites it 9× “740 ILCS 175/4(a) (West 2016). A private person may also bring a qui tam civil action under the False Claims Act “ ‘for the person and for the State’ (emphasis added), ‘in the name of the State.”
State Ex Rel. Beeler, Schad & Diamond, P.C. v. Target Corp., 856 N.E.2d 1096 (Ill. App. Ct. 2006). · cites it 10× “, the relator, or whistleblower as that term is defined in the Whistleblower Reward and Protection Act (740 ILCS 175/4(b)(2) (West 2002)) (Act) filed two complaints and blew the whistle on both Target and Wal-Mart, alleging that they created Internet subsidiaries to avoid their…”
Lyons Twp. ex rel Kielczynski v. Vill. of Indian Head Park, 2017 IL App (1st) 161574 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017). · cites it 10× “740 ILCS 175/4(a)-(c) (West 2014). With regard to a qui tam action, the State may choose to intervene or, as in this case, may allow the relator to proceed with the litigation.”
People ex rel. Schad, Diamond & Shedden, P.C. v. My Pillow, Inc., 2018 IL 122487 (Ill. 2018). · cites it 6× “¶ 4 While the Act authorizes the attorney general to bring a civil action against persons the attorney general has found to be in violation of section 3 of the Act (see 740 ILCS 175/4(a) (West 2012) ), it also expressly permits such actions to be commenced by private parties, as…”
State Ex Rel. Beeler Schad & Diamond, P.C. v. Ritz Camera Centers, Inc., 878 N.E.2d 1152 (Ill. App. Ct. 2007). · cites it 5× “See 740 ILCS 175/4 (West 2002). It is also worthy to note that the Act does not seek to impose and collect a tax, but instead seeks to penalize actions that deprive the government of funds rightfully owed to it regardless of the nature of the underlying transaction giving rise…”
State of Illinois ex rel. Pusateri v. Peoples Gas Light & Coke Co., 2014 IL 116844 (Ill. 2014). · cites it 6× “See 740 ILCS 175/4 (West 2008). On April 27, 2011, the circuit court ordered Pusateri to conduct the action on behalf of the State as plaintiff.”
Lyons Twp. ex rel Kielczynski v. Vill. of Indian Head Park, 2017 IL App (1st) 161574 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017). · cites it 8× “” 740 ILCS 175/4(b) (West 2014). Clearly, a qui tam action would not be brought on behalf of a government entity engaging in fraud, or any other random government unit with no ties to the claim.”
People ex rel. Lindblom v. Sears Brands, LLC, 2018 IL App (1st) 171468 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018). · cites it 8× “3d 363 ; 740 ILCS 175/4 (West 2014). ¶ 8 After a relator files a qui tam action, the State may elect to intervene, take over and proceed with the action, or decline to intervene giving the relator the right to conduct the action.”
People Ex Rel. Levenstein v. Salafsky, 789 N.E.2d 844 (Ill. App. Ct. 2003). · cites it 5× “After the State declined to intervene (see 740 ILCS 175/ 4(b)(4)(B) (West 2000)), Salafsky moved to dismiss the complaint (see 735 ILCS 5/2 — 619.”
Ball v. Cnty. of Cook, 896 N.E.2d 334 (Ill. App. Ct. 2008). · cites it 3× “There were eight counts in plaintiffs’ third amended complaint: (1) conversion/theft; (2) fraud/constructive fraud; (3) breach of fiduciary duties; (4) conspiracy; (5) unjust enrichment, (6) constructive trust; (7) accounting; and (8) a qui tam action on behalf of the State and…”
Show all 75 citing cases →
— 740 ILCS 175/4(a) — 15 cases
People ex rel. Schad, Diamond & Shedden, P.C. v. My Pillow, Inc., 2018 IL 122487 (Ill. 2018). “¶ 4 While the Act authorizes the attorney general to bring a civil action against persons the attorney general has found to be in violation of section 3 of the Act (see 740 ILCS 175/4(a) (West 2012) ), it also expressly permits such actions to be commenced by private parties, as…”
State ex rel. Leibowitz v. Fam. Vision Care, LLC, 2020 IL 124754 (Ill. 2020). “740 ILCS 175/4(a) (West 2016). A private person may also bring a qui tam civil action under the False Claims Act “ ‘for the person and for the State’ (emphasis added), ‘in the name of the State.”
State ex rel. Schad, Diamond & Shedden, P.C. v. My Pillow, Inc., 2018 IL 122487 (Ill. 2019).
Scachitti v. UBS Fin. Servs., 831 N.E.2d 544 (Ill. 2005). “740 ILCS 175/4(a) (West 2002). A private person may also bring a qui tam civil action “for the person and for the State” (emphasis added), “in the name of the State.”
State Ex Rel. Beeler, Schad & Diamond, P.C. v. Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse Corp., 860 N.E.2d 423 (Ill. App. Ct. 2006). “740 ILCS 175/4(a) (West 2002). A private person, referred to as a “relator,” may also bring a civil action in the name of the state for a violation of the Act, for that person and for the state.”
— 740 ILCS 175/4(a)(1) — 1 case
FCA Consultants v. City of Chicago, 2025 IL App (1st) 241457-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2025).
— 740 ILCS 175/4(b) — 17 cases
Scachitti v. UBS Fin. Servs., 831 N.E.2d 544 (Ill. 2005). “740 ILCS 175/4(a) (West 2002). A private person may also bring a qui tam civil action “for the person and for the State” (emphasis added), “in the name of the State.”
State ex rel. Leibowitz v. Fam. Vision Care, LLC, 2020 IL 124754 (Ill. 2020). “740 ILCS 175/4(a) (West 2016). A private person may also bring a qui tam civil action under the False Claims Act “ ‘for the person and for the State’ (emphasis added), ‘in the name of the State.”
Diadenko v. Folino, 890 F. Supp. 2d 975 (N.D. Ill. 2012).
Cunliffe v. Wright, 51 F. Supp. 3d 721 (N.D. Ill. 2014).
United States Ex. Rel. Humphrey v. Franklin-Williamson Human Servs., Inc., 189 F. Supp. 2d 862 (S.D. Ill. 2002).
— 740 ILCS 175/4(b)(1) — 22 cases
State ex rel. Leibowitz v. Fam. Vision Care, LLC, 2020 IL 124754 (Ill. 2020). “740 ILCS 175/4(a) (West 2016). A private person may also bring a qui tam civil action under the False Claims Act “ ‘for the person and for the State’ (emphasis added), ‘in the name of the State.”
Scachitti v. UBS Fin. Servs., 831 N.E.2d 544 (Ill. 2005). “740 ILCS 175/4(a) (West 2002). A private person may also bring a qui tam civil action “for the person and for the State” (emphasis added), “in the name of the State.”
People ex rel. Lindblom v. Sears Brands, LLC, 2019 IL App (1st) 180588 (Ill. App. Ct. 2019).
State ex rel. Leibowitz v. Fam. Vision Care, LLC, 2019 IL App (1st) 180697 (Ill. App. Ct. 2019).
People ex rel. Lindblom v. Sears Brands, LLC, 2018 IL App (1st) 171468 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018). “3d 363 ; 740 ILCS 175/4 (West 2014). ¶ 8 After a relator files a qui tam action, the State may elect to intervene, take over and proceed with the action, or decline to intervene giving the relator the right to conduct the action.”
— 740 ILCS 175/4(b)(2) — 13 cases
Scachitti v. UBS Fin. Servs., 831 N.E.2d 544 (Ill. 2005). “740 ILCS 175/4(a) (West 2002). A private person may also bring a qui tam civil action “for the person and for the State” (emphasis added), “in the name of the State.”
State ex rel. Leibowitz v. Fam. Vision Care, LLC, 2020 IL 124754 (Ill. 2020). “740 ILCS 175/4(a) (West 2016). A private person may also bring a qui tam civil action under the False Claims Act “ ‘for the person and for the State’ (emphasis added), ‘in the name of the State.”
State Ex Rel. Beeler, Schad & Diamond, P.C. v. Target Corp., 856 N.E.2d 1096 (Ill. App. Ct. 2006). “, the relator, or whistleblower as that term is defined in the Whistleblower Reward and Protection Act (740 ILCS 175/4(b)(2) (West 2002)) (Act) filed two complaints and blew the whistle on both Target and Wal-Mart, alleging that they created Internet subsidiaries to avoid their…”
State ex rel. Hurst v. Fanatics, Inc., 2021 IL App (1st) 192159 (Ill. App. Ct. 2021).
State of Illinois v. City of Chicago, 2021 IL App (1st) 191675-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2021).
— 740 ILCS 175/4(b)(3) — 5 cases
Scachitti v. UBS Fin. Servs., 831 N.E.2d 544 (Ill. 2005). “740 ILCS 175/4(a) (West 2002). A private person may also bring a qui tam civil action “for the person and for the State” (emphasis added), “in the name of the State.”
State Ex Rel. Beeler, Schad & Diamond, P.C. v. Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse Corp., 860 N.E.2d 423 (Ill. App. Ct. 2006). “740 ILCS 175/4(a) (West 2002). A private person, referred to as a “relator,” may also bring a civil action in the name of the state for a violation of the Act, for that person and for the state.”
State of Illinois v. City of Chicago, 2021 IL App (1st) 191675-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2021).
Scachitti v. UBS Fin. Servs. (Ill. 2005).
State v. Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse (Ill. App. Ct. 2006).
— 740 ILCS 175/4(b)(4) — 7 cases
State Ex Rel. Beeler, Schad & Diamond, P.C. v. Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse Corp., 860 N.E.2d 423 (Ill. App. Ct. 2006). “740 ILCS 175/4(a) (West 2002). A private person, referred to as a “relator,” may also bring a civil action in the name of the state for a violation of the Act, for that person and for the state.”
Lyons Twp. ex rel Kielczynski v. Vill. of Indian Head Park, 2017 IL App (1st) 161574 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017). “740 ILCS 175/4(a)-(c) (West 2014). With regard to a qui tam action, the State may choose to intervene or, as in this case, may allow the relator to proceed with the litigation.”
People ex rel. Lindblom v. Sears Brands, LLC, 2018 IL App (1st) 171468 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018). “3d 363 ; 740 ILCS 175/4 (West 2014). ¶ 8 After a relator files a qui tam action, the State may elect to intervene, take over and proceed with the action, or decline to intervene giving the relator the right to conduct the action.”
State of Illinois ex rel. Schad, Diamond & Shedden, P.C. v. Nat'l Bus. Furniture, LLC, 2016 IL App (1st) 150526 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016).
People v. ex rel. Schad, Diamond & Shedden, P.C. v. QVC, Inc., 2015 IL App (1st) 132999 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015).
— 740 ILCS 175/4(b)(4)(A) — 6 cases
Scachitti v. UBS Fin. Servs., 831 N.E.2d 544 (Ill. 2005). “740 ILCS 175/4(a) (West 2002). A private person may also bring a qui tam civil action “for the person and for the State” (emphasis added), “in the name of the State.”
State Ex Rel. Beeler, Schad & Diamond, P.C. v. Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse Corp., 860 N.E.2d 423 (Ill. App. Ct. 2006). “740 ILCS 175/4(a) (West 2002). A private person, referred to as a “relator,” may also bring a civil action in the name of the state for a violation of the Act, for that person and for the state.”
State Ex Rel. Beeler Schad & Diamond, P.C. v. Ritz Camera Centers, Inc., 878 N.E.2d 1152 (Ill. App. Ct. 2007). “See 740 ILCS 175/4 (West 2002). It is also worthy to note that the Act does not seek to impose and collect a tax, but instead seeks to penalize actions that deprive the government of funds rightfully owed to it regardless of the nature of the underlying transaction giving rise…”
State ex rel. Saporta v. Mortg. Elec. Reg. Sys., Inc., 2016 IL App (3d) 150336 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016).
Scachitti v. UBS Fin. Servs. (Ill. 2005).
— 740 ILCS 175/4(b)(4)(B) — 7 cases
Scachitti v. UBS Fin. Servs., 831 N.E.2d 544 (Ill. 2005). “740 ILCS 175/4(a) (West 2002). A private person may also bring a qui tam civil action “for the person and for the State” (emphasis added), “in the name of the State.”
State Ex Rel. Beeler, Schad & Diamond, P.C. v. Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse Corp., 860 N.E.2d 423 (Ill. App. Ct. 2006). “740 ILCS 175/4(a) (West 2002). A private person, referred to as a “relator,” may also bring a civil action in the name of the state for a violation of the Act, for that person and for the state.”
People Ex Rel. Levenstein v. Salafsky, 789 N.E.2d 844 (Ill. App. Ct. 2003). “After the State declined to intervene (see 740 ILCS 175/ 4(b)(4)(B) (West 2000)), Salafsky moved to dismiss the complaint (see 735 ILCS 5/2 — 619.”
People v. ex rel. Schad, Diamond & Shedden, P.C. v. QVC, Inc., 2015 IL App (1st) 132999 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015).
Scachitti v. UBS Fin. Servs. (Ill. 2005).
— 740 ILCS 175/4(b)(5) — 6 cases
Scachitti v. UBS Fin. Servs., 831 N.E.2d 544 (Ill. 2005). “740 ILCS 175/4(a) (West 2002). A private person may also bring a qui tam civil action “for the person and for the State” (emphasis added), “in the name of the State.”
State Ex Rel. Beeler, Schad & Diamond, P.C. v. Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse Corp., 860 N.E.2d 423 (Ill. App. Ct. 2006). “740 ILCS 175/4(a) (West 2002). A private person, referred to as a “relator,” may also bring a civil action in the name of the state for a violation of the Act, for that person and for the state.”
United States Ex Rel. Batty v. Amerigroup Illinois, Inc., 528 F. Supp. 2d 861 (N.D. Ill. 2007).
United States v. Rossi (C.D. Ill. 2024).
Scachitti v. UBS Fin. Servs. (Ill. 2005).
— 740 ILCS 175/4(b)(l) — 3 cases
State Ex Rel. Beeler, Schad & Diamond, P.C. v. Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse Corp., 860 N.E.2d 423 (Ill. App. Ct. 2006). “740 ILCS 175/4(a) (West 2002). A private person, referred to as a “relator,” may also bring a civil action in the name of the state for a violation of the Act, for that person and for the state.”
Ball v. Cnty. of Cook, 896 N.E.2d 334 (Ill. App. Ct. 2008). “There were eight counts in plaintiffs’ third amended complaint: (1) conversion/theft; (2) fraud/constructive fraud; (3) breach of fiduciary duties; (4) conspiracy; (5) unjust enrichment, (6) constructive trust; (7) accounting; and (8) a qui tam action on behalf of the State and…”
United States Ex. Rel. Humphrey v. Franklin-Williamson Human Servs., Inc., 189 F. Supp. 2d 862 (S.D. Ill. 2002).
— 740 ILCS 175/4(c) — 16 cases
State ex rel. Leibowitz v. Fam. Vision Care, LLC, 2020 IL 124754 (Ill. 2020). “740 ILCS 175/4(a) (West 2016). A private person may also bring a qui tam civil action under the False Claims Act “ ‘for the person and for the State’ (emphasis added), ‘in the name of the State.”
Scachitti v. UBS Fin. Servs., 831 N.E.2d 544 (Ill. 2005). “740 ILCS 175/4(a) (West 2002). A private person may also bring a qui tam civil action “for the person and for the State” (emphasis added), “in the name of the State.”
Ball v. Cnty. of Cook, 896 N.E.2d 334 (Ill. App. Ct. 2008). “There were eight counts in plaintiffs’ third amended complaint: (1) conversion/theft; (2) fraud/constructive fraud; (3) breach of fiduciary duties; (4) conspiracy; (5) unjust enrichment, (6) constructive trust; (7) accounting; and (8) a qui tam action on behalf of the State and…”
State Ex Rel. Beeler, Schad & Diamond, P.C. v. Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse Corp., 860 N.E.2d 423 (Ill. App. Ct. 2006). “740 ILCS 175/4(a) (West 2002). A private person, referred to as a “relator,” may also bring a civil action in the name of the state for a violation of the Act, for that person and for the state.”
Lyons Twp. ex rel Kielczynski v. Vill. of Indian Head Park, 2017 IL App (1st) 161574 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017). “740 ILCS 175/4(a)-(c) (West 2014). With regard to a qui tam action, the State may choose to intervene or, as in this case, may allow the relator to proceed with the litigation.”
— 740 ILCS 175/4(c)(1) — 11 cases
Lyons Twp. ex rel Kielczynski v. Vill. of Indian Head Park, 2017 IL App (1st) 161574 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017). “” 740 ILCS 175/4(b) (West 2014). Clearly, a qui tam action would not be brought on behalf of a government entity engaging in fraud, or any other random government unit with no ties to the claim.”
People ex rel. Lindblom v. Sears Brands, LLC, 2018 IL App (1st) 171468 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018). “3d 363 ; 740 ILCS 175/4 (West 2014). ¶ 8 After a relator files a qui tam action, the State may elect to intervene, take over and proceed with the action, or decline to intervene giving the relator the right to conduct the action.”
People ex rel. Fox v. State, 2023 IL App (4th) 220622 (Ill. App. Ct. 2023).
State of Illinois ex rel. Schad, Diamond & Shedden, P.C. v. Nat'l Bus. Furniture, LLC, 2016 IL App (1st) 150526 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016).
People v. ex rel. Schad, Diamond & Shedden, P.C. v. QVC, Inc., 2015 IL App (1st) 132999 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015).
— 740 ILCS 175/4(c)(2)(A) — 14 cases
Scachitti v. UBS Fin. Servs., 831 N.E.2d 544 (Ill. 2005). “740 ILCS 175/4(a) (West 2002). A private person may also bring a qui tam civil action “for the person and for the State” (emphasis added), “in the name of the State.”
State ex rel. Leibowitz v. Fam. Vision Care, LLC, 2020 IL 124754 (Ill. 2020). “740 ILCS 175/4(a) (West 2016). A private person may also bring a qui tam civil action under the False Claims Act “ ‘for the person and for the State’ (emphasis added), ‘in the name of the State.”
State Ex Rel. Beeler, Schad & Diamond, P.C. v. Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse Corp., 860 N.E.2d 423 (Ill. App. Ct. 2006). “740 ILCS 175/4(a) (West 2002). A private person, referred to as a “relator,” may also bring a civil action in the name of the state for a violation of the Act, for that person and for the state.”
State Ex Rel. Beeler, Schad & Diamond, P.C. v. Target Corp., 856 N.E.2d 1096 (Ill. App. Ct. 2006). “, the relator, or whistleblower as that term is defined in the Whistleblower Reward and Protection Act (740 ILCS 175/4(b)(2) (West 2002)) (Act) filed two complaints and blew the whistle on both Target and Wal-Mart, alleging that they created Internet subsidiaries to avoid their…”
People ex rel. Fox v. State, 2023 IL App (4th) 220622 (Ill. App. Ct. 2023).
— 740 ILCS 175/4(c)(2)(B) — 5 cases
State Ex Rel. Beeler, Schad & Diamond, P.C. v. Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse Corp., 860 N.E.2d 423 (Ill. App. Ct. 2006). “740 ILCS 175/4(a) (West 2002). A private person, referred to as a “relator,” may also bring a civil action in the name of the state for a violation of the Act, for that person and for the state.”
People ex rel. Fox v. State, 2023 IL App (4th) 220622 (Ill. App. Ct. 2023).
People v. ex rel. Schad, Diamond & Shedden, P.C. v. QVC, Inc., 2015 IL App (1st) 132999 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015).
People v. ex rel. Schad, Diamond & Shedden, P.C. v. QVC, Inc., 2015 IL App (1st) 132999 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015).
State v. Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse (Ill. App. Ct. 2006).
— 740 ILCS 175/4(c)(2)(C) — 5 cases
State ex rel. Leibowitz v. Fam. Vision Care, LLC, 2020 IL 124754 (Ill. 2020). “740 ILCS 175/4(a) (West 2016). A private person may also bring a qui tam civil action under the False Claims Act “ ‘for the person and for the State’ (emphasis added), ‘in the name of the State.”
Scachitti v. UBS Fin. Servs., 831 N.E.2d 544 (Ill. 2005). “740 ILCS 175/4(a) (West 2002). A private person may also bring a qui tam civil action “for the person and for the State” (emphasis added), “in the name of the State.”
State ex rel. Leibowitz v. Fam. Vision Care, LLC, 2020 IL 124754 (Ill. 2020).
State ex rel. Saporta v. Mortg. Elec. Reg. Sys., Inc., 2016 IL App (3d) 150336 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016).
Scachitti v. UBS Fin. Servs. (Ill. 2005).
— 740 ILCS 175/4(c)(2)(D) — 2 cases
State Ex Rel. Beeler, Schad & Diamond, P.C. v. Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse Corp., 860 N.E.2d 423 (Ill. App. Ct. 2006). “740 ILCS 175/4(a) (West 2002). A private person, referred to as a “relator,” may also bring a civil action in the name of the state for a violation of the Act, for that person and for the state.”
State v. Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse (Ill. App. Ct. 2006).
— 740 ILCS 175/4(c)(3) — 7 cases
Scachitti v. UBS Fin. Servs., 831 N.E.2d 544 (Ill. 2005). “740 ILCS 175/4(a) (West 2002). A private person may also bring a qui tam civil action “for the person and for the State” (emphasis added), “in the name of the State.”
State ex rel. Leibowitz v. Fam. Vision Care, LLC, 2020 IL 124754 (Ill. 2020). “740 ILCS 175/4(a) (West 2016). A private person may also bring a qui tam civil action under the False Claims Act “ ‘for the person and for the State’ (emphasis added), ‘in the name of the State.”
State Ex Rel. Beeler, Schad & Diamond, P.C. v. Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse Corp., 860 N.E.2d 423 (Ill. App. Ct. 2006). “740 ILCS 175/4(a) (West 2002). A private person, referred to as a “relator,” may also bring a civil action in the name of the state for a violation of the Act, for that person and for the state.”
State ex rel. Leibowitz v. Fam. Vision Care, LLC, 2020 IL 124754 (Ill. 2020).
State ex rel. Saporta v. Mortg. Elec. Reg. Sys., Inc., 2016 IL App (3d) 150336 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016).
— 740 ILCS 175/4(c)(4) — 6 cases
Scachitti v. UBS Fin. Servs., 831 N.E.2d 544 (Ill. 2005). “740 ILCS 175/4(a) (West 2002). A private person may also bring a qui tam civil action “for the person and for the State” (emphasis added), “in the name of the State.”
State Ex Rel. Beeler, Schad & Diamond, P.C. v. Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse Corp., 860 N.E.2d 423 (Ill. App. Ct. 2006). “740 ILCS 175/4(a) (West 2002). A private person, referred to as a “relator,” may also bring a civil action in the name of the state for a violation of the Act, for that person and for the state.”
People v. ex rel. Schad, Diamond & Shedden, P.C. v. QVC, Inc., 2015 IL App (1st) 132999 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015).
People v. ex rel. Schad, Diamond & Shedden, P.C. v. QVC, Inc., 2015 IL App (1st) 132999 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015).
Scachitti v. UBS Fin. Servs. (Ill. 2005).
— 740 ILCS 175/4(c)(5) — 5 cases
Scachitti v. UBS Fin. Servs., 831 N.E.2d 544 (Ill. 2005). “740 ILCS 175/4(a) (West 2002). A private person may also bring a qui tam civil action “for the person and for the State” (emphasis added), “in the name of the State.”
State Ex Rel. Beeler, Schad & Diamond, P.C. v. Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse Corp., 860 N.E.2d 423 (Ill. App. Ct. 2006). “740 ILCS 175/4(a) (West 2002). A private person, referred to as a “relator,” may also bring a civil action in the name of the state for a violation of the Act, for that person and for the state.”
State ex rel. Hurst v. Fanatics, Inc., 2021 IL App (1st) 192159 (Ill. App. Ct. 2021).
Scachitti v. UBS Fin. Servs. (Ill. 2005).
State v. Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse (Ill. App. Ct. 2006).
— 740 ILCS 175/4(c)(l) — 2 cases
State Ex Rel. Beeler, Schad & Diamond, P.C. v. Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse Corp., 860 N.E.2d 423 (Ill. App. Ct. 2006). “740 ILCS 175/4(a) (West 2002). A private person, referred to as a “relator,” may also bring a civil action in the name of the state for a violation of the Act, for that person and for the state.”
Scachitti v. UBS Fin. Servs., 831 N.E.2d 544 (Ill. 2005). “740 ILCS 175/4(a) (West 2002). A private person may also bring a qui tam civil action “for the person and for the State” (emphasis added), “in the name of the State.”
— 740 ILCS 175/4(d) — 7 cases
State Ex Rel. Beeler Schad & Diamond, P.C. v. Ritz Camera Centers, Inc., 878 N.E.2d 1152 (Ill. App. Ct. 2007). “See 740 ILCS 175/4 (West 2002). It is also worthy to note that the Act does not seek to impose and collect a tax, but instead seeks to penalize actions that deprive the government of funds rightfully owed to it regardless of the nature of the underlying transaction giving rise…”
State ex rel. Hurst v. Fanatics, Inc., 2021 IL App (1st) 192159 (Ill. App. Ct. 2021).
People v. ex rel. Schad, Diamond & Shedden, P.C. v. QVC, Inc., 2015 IL App (1st) 132999 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015).
State of Illinois v. City of Chicago, 2021 IL App (1st) 191675-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2021).
State ex rel. Hurst v. Fanatics, Inc., 2021 IL App (1st) 192159 (Ill. App. Ct. 2021).
— 740 ILCS 175/4(d)(1) — 4 cases
Scachitti v. UBS Fin. Servs., 831 N.E.2d 544 (Ill. 2005). “740 ILCS 175/4(a) (West 2002). A private person may also bring a qui tam civil action “for the person and for the State” (emphasis added), “in the name of the State.”
People ex rel. Schad, Diamond & Shedden, P.C. v. My Pillow, Inc., 2017 IL App (1st) 152668 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017).
People ex rel. Schad, Diamond & Shedden, P.C. v. My Pillow, Inc., 2017 IL App (1st) 152668 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017).
Scachitti v. UBS Fin. Servs. (Ill. 2005).
— 740 ILCS 175/4(d)(2) — 16 cases
People ex rel. Schad, Diamond & Shedden, P.C. v. My Pillow, Inc., 2018 IL 122487 (Ill. 2018). “¶ 4 While the Act authorizes the attorney general to bring a civil action against persons the attorney general has found to be in violation of section 3 of the Act (see 740 ILCS 175/4(a) (West 2012) ), it also expressly permits such actions to be commenced by private parties, as…”
People ex rel. Schad, Diamond & Shedden, P.C. v. My Pillow, Inc., 2017 IL App (1st) 152668 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017).
Scachitti v. UBS Fin. Servs., 831 N.E.2d 544 (Ill. 2005). “740 ILCS 175/4(a) (West 2002). A private person may also bring a qui tam civil action “for the person and for the State” (emphasis added), “in the name of the State.”
State of Illinois ex rel. Pusateri v. Peoples Gas Light & Coke Co., 2014 IL 116844 (Ill. 2014). “See 740 ILCS 175/4 (West 2008). On April 27, 2011, the circuit court ordered Pusateri to conduct the action on behalf of the State as plaintiff.”
State ex rel. Schad, Diamond & Shedden, P.C. v. My Pillow, Inc., 2018 IL 122487 (Ill. 2019).
— 740 ILCS 175/4(d)(l) — 2 cases
United States Ex Rel. Bogart v. King Pharm., 493 F.3d 323 (3rd Cir. 2007).
United States Ex Rel. Bogart v. King Pharm., 410 F. Supp. 2d 404 (E.D. Pa. 2006).
— 740 ILCS 175/4(e)(1) — 1 case
State of Illinois ex rel. Pusateri v. Peoples Gas Light & Coke Co., 2014 IL 116844 (Ill. 2014). “See 740 ILCS 175/4 (West 2008). On April 27, 2011, the circuit court ordered Pusateri to conduct the action on behalf of the State as plaintiff.”
— 740 ILCS 175/4(e)(3) — 10 cases
People Ex Rel. Levenstein v. Salafsky, 789 N.E.2d 844 (Ill. App. Ct. 2003). “After the State declined to intervene (see 740 ILCS 175/ 4(b)(4)(B) (West 2000)), Salafsky moved to dismiss the complaint (see 735 ILCS 5/2 — 619.”
Scachitti v. UBS Fin. Servs., 831 N.E.2d 544 (Ill. 2005). “740 ILCS 175/4(a) (West 2002). A private person may also bring a qui tam civil action “for the person and for the State” (emphasis added), “in the name of the State.”
People ex rel. Lindblom v. Sears Brands, LLC, 2018 IL App (1st) 171468 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018). “3d 363 ; 740 ILCS 175/4 (West 2014). ¶ 8 After a relator files a qui tam action, the State may elect to intervene, take over and proceed with the action, or decline to intervene giving the relator the right to conduct the action.”
United States Ex Rel. Batty v. Amerigroup Illinois, Inc., 528 F. Supp. 2d 861 (N.D. Ill. 2007).
People ex rel. Lindblom v. Sears Brands, LLC, 2018 IL App (1st) 171468 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018).
— 740 ILCS 175/4(e)(4) — 6 cases
Lyons Twp. ex rel Kielczynski v. Vill. of Indian Head Park, 2017 IL App (1st) 161574 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017). “740 ILCS 175/4(a)-(c) (West 2014). With regard to a qui tam action, the State may choose to intervene or, as in this case, may allow the relator to proceed with the litigation.”
State Ex Rel. Beeler, Schad & Diamond, P.C. v. Target Corp., 856 N.E.2d 1096 (Ill. App. Ct. 2006). “, the relator, or whistleblower as that term is defined in the Whistleblower Reward and Protection Act (740 ILCS 175/4(b)(2) (West 2002)) (Act) filed two complaints and blew the whistle on both Target and Wal-Mart, alleging that they created Internet subsidiaries to avoid their…”
Lyons Twp. ex rel Kielczynski v. Vill. of Indian Head Park, 2017 IL App (1st) 161574 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017). “” 740 ILCS 175/4(b) (West 2014). Clearly, a qui tam action would not be brought on behalf of a government entity engaging in fraud, or any other random government unit with no ties to the claim.”
Bannon Ex Rel. United States v. Edgewater Med. Ctr., 406 F. Supp. 2d 907 (N.D. Ill. 2005).
Lyons Twp. ex rel Kielczynski v. Vill. of Indian Head Park, 2017 IL App (1st) 161574 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017).
— 740 ILCS 175/4(e)(4)(A) — 9 cases
State Ex Rel. Beeler, Schad & Diamond, P.C. v. Target Corp., 856 N.E.2d 1096 (Ill. App. Ct. 2006). “, the relator, or whistleblower as that term is defined in the Whistleblower Reward and Protection Act (740 ILCS 175/4(b)(2) (West 2002)) (Act) filed two complaints and blew the whistle on both Target and Wal-Mart, alleging that they created Internet subsidiaries to avoid their…”
People ex rel. Lindblom v. Sears Brands, LLC, 2019 IL App (1st) 180588 (Ill. App. Ct. 2019).
Lyons Twp. ex rel Kielczynski v. Vill. of Indian Head Park, 2017 IL App (1st) 161574 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017). “740 ILCS 175/4(a)-(c) (West 2014). With regard to a qui tam action, the State may choose to intervene or, as in this case, may allow the relator to proceed with the litigation.”
Lyons Twp. ex rel Kielczynski v. Vill. of Indian Head Park, 2017 IL App (1st) 161574 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017). “” 740 ILCS 175/4(b) (West 2014). Clearly, a qui tam action would not be brought on behalf of a government entity engaging in fraud, or any other random government unit with no ties to the claim.”
State of Illinois v. City of Chicago, 2021 IL App (1st) 191675-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2021).
— 740 ILCS 175/4(e)(4)(A)(i) — 2 cases
State of Illinois ex rel Wilke v. Ameresco, Inc., 2020 IL App (4th) 180563-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2020).
People of the State of Illinois ex rel. Byron Strakusek v. Omnicare, Inc. (N.D. Ill. 2021).
— 740 ILCS 175/4(e)(4)(A)(ii) — 2 cases
State of Illinois ex rel Wilke v. Ameresco, Inc., 2020 IL App (4th) 180563-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2020).
State ex rel. Phillip E. Edmondson v. Bd. of Trs. of Illinois E. Cmty. Colleges, 2019 IL App (5th) 180333 (Ill. App. Ct. 2019).
— 740 ILCS 175/4(e)(4)(A)(iii) — 1 case
State of Illinois ex rel Wilke v. Ameresco, Inc., 2020 IL App (4th) 180563-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2020).
— 740 ILCS 175/4(e)(4)(B) — 3 cases
State Ex Rel. Beeler, Schad & Diamond, P.C. v. Target Corp., 856 N.E.2d 1096 (Ill. App. Ct. 2006). “, the relator, or whistleblower as that term is defined in the Whistleblower Reward and Protection Act (740 ILCS 175/4(b)(2) (West 2002)) (Act) filed two complaints and blew the whistle on both Target and Wal-Mart, alleging that they created Internet subsidiaries to avoid their…”
Willms v. OSF Healthcare Sys., 2013 IL App (3d) 120450 (Ill. App. Ct. 2013).
People of the State of Illinois ex rel. Byron Strakusek v. Omnicare, Inc. (N.D. Ill. 2021).
— 740 ILCS 175/4(g) — 9 cases
William Fanslow v. Chicago Mfg. Ctr., Inc., 384 F.3d 469 (7th Cir. 2004).
Scachitti v. UBS Fin. Servs., 831 N.E.2d 544 (Ill. 2005). “740 ILCS 175/4(a) (West 2002). A private person may also bring a qui tam civil action “for the person and for the State” (emphasis added), “in the name of the State.”
United States Ex Rel. Kennedy v. Aventis Pharm., Inc., 512 F. Supp. 2d 1158 (N.D. Ill. 2007).
United States ex rel. Upton v. Fam. Health Network, Inc., 900 F. Supp. 2d 821 (N.D. Ill. 2012).
McDonough v. City of Chicago, 743 F. Supp. 2d 961 (N.D. Ill. 2010).
— 740 ILCS 175/4(g)(1) — 1 case
United States of Am. v. Reditus Labs. (C.D. Ill. 2024).
— 740 ILCS 175/4(g)(2) — 1 case
Yury Grenadyor v. Ukrainian Vill. Pharmacy, Inc. (N.D. Ill. 2019).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.