Universal Health Services, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Escobar’s Empirical Analysis
2016
Citation profile
104 federal appellate · 38 district · 12 state decisions
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)
Relies on Neder v. United States · United States Marcus v. Hess · Vermont Agency of Natural Resources v. United States Ex Rel. Stevens · Kungys v. United States · United States v. Bornstein
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 392 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[P]roof of materiality can include, but is not necessarily limited to, evidence that the defendant knows that the Government consistently refuses to pay claims in the mine run of cases based on noncompliance with the particular statutory, regulatory, or contractual requirement. Conversely, if the Government pays a particular claim in full despite its actual knowledge that certain requirements were violated, that is very strong evidence that those requirements are not material. Or, if the Government regularly pays a particular type of claim in full despite actual knowledge that certain requirements were violated, and has signaled no change in position, that is strong evidence that the requirements are not material.”
43 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“having a natural tendency to influence, or be capable of influencing, the payment or receipt of money or property.”
28 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the effect on the likely or actual behavior of the recipient of the alleged misrepresentation.”
18 later decisions 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.