Costner v. URS Consultants, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• indicating that a lawsuit is not a \challenge\ under § 113(h) if it \would not involve altering the terms of [a] cleanup order\ and \would result only in financial penalties\ (citation omitted)
• discussing analogue administrative proceedings bar in the Federal False Claims Act and describing it as a “jurisdictional bar”
• considering potential applicability of bar where relators filed qui tam action following 25 “previous suits and administrative proceedings in which the government has participated”
• distinguishing between claims made against government funds and claims made against private funds
• “Regarding the ‘same claims or causes of action’ element of claim preclusion, we have stated that whether a second lawsuit is precluded turns on whether its claims arise out of the ‘same nucleus of operative facts as the prior claim.’ ”
• “[W]hether a second lawsuit is precluded turns on whether its claims arise out of the ‘same nucleus of operative facts as the prior claim.’”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).