Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 145 F.3d 1069 - United States ex rel. Hochman v. Nackman

United States ex rel. Hochman v. Nackman’s Empirical Analysis

145 F.3d 1069 · 1998

Citation profile

55
cited by 55 later decisions
1
states following
April 2020
most recently cited

21 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 55 later decisions — most recently April 2020 · most notably Leslie v. Grupo ICA (1999), United States v. Corinthian Colleges (2011)

21 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 state decisions

2701998200020102020decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Liteky et al United States · Warren III v. City of Carlsbad · Wang Cc v. Fmc Corporation · United States ex rel. Hagood v. Sonoma County Water Agency

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 55 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “The requisite intent is the knowing presentation of what is known to be false.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
    e.g. United States ex rel. Durkin v. Cnty. of San Diego · 442 F. Supp. 2d 1008 - United States v. Prabhu
  2. “does not mean scientifically untrue, but”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
    e.g. 442 F. Supp. 2d 1008 - United States v. Prabhu · 173 F. Supp. 2d 987 - US Ex Rel. Rosales v. SAN FRAN. HOUSING AUTHOR.
  3. “(1) knowingly presents, or causes to be presented, to an officer or employee of the United States Government ... a false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval (2) knowingly makes, uses, or causes to be made or used, a false record or statement to get a false or fraudulent claim paid or approved by the government; (3) conspires to defraud the Government by getting a false or fraudulent claim paid.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
    e.g. 490 F. Supp. 2d 1062 - United States Ex Rel. Lockyer v. Hawaii Pacific Health · 173 F. Supp. 2d 987 - US Ex Rel. Rosales v. SAN FRAN. HOUSING AUTHOR.

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.