United States of America, Ex Rel. Kevin G. Kelly v. The Boeing 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 district court did not err by taking judicia 10 || notice of pleadings in earlier related proceedings
• holding that a qui tam relator “who litigates only a single case” and “must yield” to the government when it elects to intervene does not exercise “significant authority”
• holding that the FCA’s qui tam provisions do not “dis- rupt the proper balance between the branches because . . . the FCA permits the Executive Branch to retain sufficient control over pros- ecutorial functions”
• reasoning that to preserve the FCA, the Act should be interpreted to give government similar degree of control over litigation as if it had intervened at litigation's inception
• determining that the FCA provides the government with sufficient control over the conduct of the relator to ensure that the Executive Branch can perform its constitutionally assigned duties
• describing as \exaggerated\ the argument that Marshall \strongly suggested\ a financial disinterestedness requirement for prosecutors

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).