United States ex rel. Stephen Paranich, D.C. v. Sorgnard’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 state decisions

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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “criminal, civil, or administrative hearing.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. United States v. Medtronic, Inc. · US Ex Rel. Wilson v. GRAHAM COUNTY SOIL & WATER

2. “designed to preclude qui tam suits based on information that would have been equally available to strangers to the fraud transaction”); United States ex rel. Paranich v. Sorgnard, 396 F.3d 326 , 332 (3d Cir.2005) (same); United States ex rel. Fine v. Advanced Scis., Inc., 99 F.3d 1000, 1005 (10th Cir.1996) (same); United States ex rel. Feingold v. AdminaStar Federal, Inc., 324 F.3d 492, 495 (7th Cir.2003) (”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 933 F. Supp. 2d 825 - United States ex rel. Beauchamp v. Academi Training Center, Inc.

3. “(1) there was a “public disclosure”; (2) “in a criminal, civil, or administrative hearing, in a congressional, administrative, or Government [General] Accounting Office report, hearing, audit, or investigation, or from the news media”; (3) of “allegations or transactions” of the fraud; (4) that the relator’s action was “based upon”; and (5) the relator was not an “original source” of the information.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 96 F. Supp. 3d 504 - United States ex rel. Gohil v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S. Inc.