Presser v. Key Food Stores Cooperative, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• limiting discovery initially to the state of Indiana to probe the validity of the kickback allegations before considering whether to authorize nationwide discovery
• alleging 5 off labels marketing as criminal “is not sufficient, without more, to plead a false claims act 6 violation”
• two hundred claims submitted in the state of Indiana were sufficient to meet Rule 9(b) requirements for the pleading of FCA counts involving eleven other states
• “[I]f a state knowingly chose to reimburse for a drug, even for an off-label use, after a prior authorization review, [FCA] liability would not attach because extensive government knowledge would ‘negate the intent requirement under the FCA as a matter of law.’”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).