United States of America Ex Rel., Mervyn A. Schwedt v. Planning Research Corporation, a Virginia Corporation

How courts have described this case

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

• reasoning that “an initial misrepresentation about [the defendant’s] capability to perform the contract” is an element of a fraudulent inducement claim
• finding that a defendant should be liable “only for those damages that would not have come about if the defendant’s misrepresentations had been true”
• reasoning that to state a fraudulent inducement claim, a plaintiff must plead that the defendant’s initial misrepresentation was made to induce the government to enter into the contract
• finding error in the district court’s “fail[ure] to consider that the individual progress reports, though not in themselves actual invoices, might constitute ‘false claims’ or ‘statements’ under the Act” giving rise to civil penalties
• claim need not be an invoice but may be a progress report submitted to induce payment
• “regardless whether the submission of the claim actually causes the government any damages . . . its very submission is a basis for liability”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).