Hays v. Hoffman’s Empirical Analysis
325 F.3d 982 · 2003
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 7 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 46 later decisions (4 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2024 · most notably Rockwell International Corp. v. United States (2007), Graham County Soil & Water Conservation District v. United States Ex Rel. Wilson (2010)
16 federal appellate · 7 district · 1 state decisions
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.
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 31 U.S.C. § 3729 (False Claims Act) · 31 U.S.C. § 3730 (False Claims Act) · 42 U.S.C. § 1396 (§ 1900 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1396A (§ 1902 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 5304
Relies on Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of America · Buckhannon Board and Care Home Incs v. West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources · Wilder v. Virginia Hospital Assn. · New Jersey v. New York · Sutton v. United States
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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(A) No court shall have jurisdiction over an action under this section based upon the public disclosure of allegations or transactions in a criminal, civil, or administrative hearing, in a congressional, administrative, or Government Account ing Office report, hearing, audit, or investigation, or from the news media, unless the action is brought by the Attorney General or the person bringing the action is an original source of the information.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) whether the alleged “public disclosure” [was made by or in] one of the listed sources; (2) whether the alleged disclosure has been made “public” within the meaning of the FCA; (3) whether the relator’s complaint is “based upon” this “public disclosure”; and if so, (4) whether the relator qualifies as an “original source” under § 3730(e)(4)(B). Hays, 325 F.3d at 987 (quoting United States ex rel. Holmes v. Consumer Ins. Group, 318 F.3d 1199, 1203 (10th Cir.2003) (en banc)).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[W]hile we do not disagree with the Third Circuit's decision in Dunleavy, we conclude the court ruled more broadly than necessary in stating that a state agency disclosure may never be an administrative report or audit for purposes of § 3730(e)(4)(A).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.