Brian Smith v. Clark/Smoot/Russell

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• stating that FCA retaliation claims “need pass only [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure] 8(a)’s relatively low notice-pleadings muster—in contrast to Rule 9(b)’s specificity requirements”
• noting that the second category “plainly encompasses more than just activities undertaken in furtherance of a False Claims' Act lawsuit”
• explaining that the amendment expanded the boundaries of what constitutes notice of protected activity
• explaining that FCA retaliation claims “need pass only [Federal Rule of] Civil Procedure 8(a)’s relatively low notice- pleadings muster—in contrast to Rule 9(b)’s specificity requirements”
• explaining that allegations offered in support of a retaliation claim “need pass only Civil Procedure Rule 8(a)’s relatively low notice- pleadings muster”
• stating that FCA retaliation allegations “need pass only Civil Procedure Rule 8(a)’s relatively low notice‐pleadings muster—in contrast to Rule 9(b)’s specificity requirements”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).