United States Ex Rel. Poteet v. Bahler Medical, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that “[t]he only notable difference between the two allegations” is that in the latest complaint, the relator identifies a specific device and the exact means by which the improper influence was applied to induce fraudulent claims
• holding that the public disclosure bar applies when relator's own lawsuit was the source of the prior public disclosure and noting that after a relator has \blow[n] the whistle on fraud . . . . there seems to be little need to encourage them to give the whistle a second toot\
• holding that the public disclosure bar applies when relator's own lawsuit was the source of the prior public disclosure and noting that after a relator has \blow[n] the whistle on fraud . . . . there seems to be little need to encourage them to give the whistle a second toot\
• finding enough to trigger public disclosure bar where relator’s allegation and prior disclosure “ultimately target[] the same fraudulent scheme”
• affirming dismissal for lack of jurisdiction with prejudice where jurisdictional defect was incurable
• articles published in the New York Times that discuss allegations in a complaint qualify as public disclosures

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).