United States of America Ex Rel., and Jerome F. Butler v. Hughes Helicopters, Inc., and McDonnell Douglas Helicopter Company

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 Army’s approval of and participation in particular procedures precludes the government from proving the requisite intent for an FCA violation
• holding that a DD-250 form did not constitute a claim by the defendant, as defined by the FCA, “because the government, not [defendant], certified on the form that the goods confirmed to contract”
• finding that “government knowledge is no longer an automatic bar” to a finding of a violation under the FCA
• finding that when government representatives are made aware of alleged discrepancies, a contractor could not have “knowingly” submitted a false claim
• holding statements were “not false” where they “actually disclose[d] what [the relator] claim[ed] they conceal[ed]”
• finding that a continuing dialogue and “pattern of cooperation between the Army and [the contractor]” was sufficient evidence showing that the contractor lacked the requisite intent under the FCA

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).