Vermont Agency of Natural Resources v. United States Ex Rel. Stevens’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
724 federal appellate · 324 district · 149 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 2,365 later decisions (57 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2025 · most notably Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins (2016), McConnell United States Senator et al. v. Federal Election Commission et al. (2003)
724 federal appellate · 324 district · 149 state decisions — followed in 19 states
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
reviewedUnited States ex rel. Stevens v. Vermont Agency of Natural Resources (from Second Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 1 U.S.C. § 1 (Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002) · 11 U.S.C. § 106 · 18 U.S.C. § 287 · 18 U.S.C. § 962 · 25 U.S.C. § 81 · 31 U.S.C. § 3729 (False Claims Act) · 31 U.S.C. § 3730 (False Claims Act) · 31 U.S.C. § 3733 (False Claims Act)
Relies on Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife · Warth v. Seldin · Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle · Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment · Will v. Michigan Department of State Police
Cited together with Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife · Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment · Warth v. Seldin · Ashcroft v. Iqbal · Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly
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 2,365 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“knowingly presents ... a false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval”
23 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the statute gives the relator himself an interest in the lawsuit, and not merely the right to retain a fee out of the recovery. Thus, it provides that “[a] person may bring a civil action for a violation of section 3729 for the person and for the United States Government,” § 3730(b) (emphasis added); gives the relator “the right to continue as a party to the action” even when the Government itself has assumed “primary responsibility” for prosecuting it, § 3730(c)(1); entitles the relator to a hearing before the Government’s voluntary dismissal of the suit, § 3730(c)(2)(A); and prohibits the Government from settling the suit oyer the relator’s objection without a judicial determination of “fair[ness], adequacy] and reasonableness],” § 3730(c)(2)(B).”
21 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“who pursues this action on our Lord the King's behalf as well as his own.”
20 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.