Carr v. Hahn & Carter

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the \what\ requirement was satisfied by the relator's \detailed identification of a central and institutionalized failure to comply with the [government price] requirement\
• holding that the “what” requirement was satisfied by the relator’s “detailed identification of a central and institutionalized failure to comply with the [government price] requirement”
• explaining that 7 plaintiff alleged that defendant “knew that compliance was a material and express condition for reimbursement”
• finding sufficient, under the implied certification theory, the allegation that had government-appointed fund administrator known, of noncompliance, it would not have made payments
• observing that a second claim will be barred by the first-to-file rule where the first has “already put the government on notice of both the nature and reach of the alleged fraud” and that “the greater fraud often includes the lesser”
• taking note of 4 allegation that AT&T was a recidivist violator of the E-Rate Program

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).