United States Ex Rel. May v. Purdue Pharma L.P.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a False Claims Act rule that “[t]he court shall dismiss an action” based on publicly disclosed information is not jurisdictional
• noting that dismissal with prejudice would be improper where amendment would not be futile or otherwise improper
• noting that dismissal with prejudice would be improper where amendment would not be futile or otherwise improper
• noting that dismissal with prejudice would be improper where amendment would not be futile or otherwise improper
• explaining that because the Fourth Circuit had not used the substantially-the-same standard, the 2010 amendment \changed the required connection between the plaintiff's claims and the qualifying public disclosure\ in that circuit
• noting that the qui tam provisions of the FCA “statutorily vests private citizens with standing” (citing Vt. Agency of Natural Res. v. United States ex rel. Stevens, 529 U.S. 765, 773 (2000))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).