Sanders v. Allison Engine Co.’s Empirical Analysis
703 F.3d 930 · 2012
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 4 district ·
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1014 · 18 U.S.C. § 1031 · 18 U.S.C. § 1348 (§ 807 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002) · 18 U.S.C. § 1956 (§ 1352 of the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 287 · 28 U.S.C. § 1292 · 31 U.S.C. § 3729 (False Claims Act) · 31 U.S.C. § 3730 (False Claims Act)
Relies on Landgraf v. USI Film Products · Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White · Lindh v. Murphy · Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Enrico St Cyr · Russello 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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The Sixth Circuit has determined that: Supreme Court has found ‘compensatory traits’ in the FCA damages multiplier such that the treble damages available under the FCA ‘have a compensatory side, serving remedial purposes in addition to punitive objectives.’ Cook Cnty. v. United States ex rel. Chandler, 538 U.S. 119, 130 , 123 S.Ct. 1239 , 155 L.Ed.2d 247 (2003). The Court reached this conclusion based on several ‘facts about the FCA,’ including the facts that ‘some liability beyond the amount of the fraud is usually necessary to compensate the Government completely for the costs, delays, and inconveniences occasioned by fraudulent claims,’ the FCA contains a qui tarn feature which means that ‘as much as 30 percent of the Government’s recovery’ may be diverted to the relator and thus the ‘remaining double damages ... provide elements of make-whole recovery beyond mere recoupment of the fraud,’ and the FCA does not provide for pre-judgment interest or consequential damages that often accompany recovery for fraud. Id. at 130-31 , 123 S.Ct. 1239 (internal quotation marks omitted). Given the Supreme Court’s analysis of the FCA’s treble damages provision, an alternative purpose may be assigned' — -that of compensating, or making whole, the government for its losses suffered due to fraud — and this factor weighs in favor of finding a civil purpose or effect.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“). That said, the changes to § 3729(a)(2), specifically, apply to “all claims under the False Claims Act ... pending on or after [June 7, 2008].” See id. § 4(0(1). And a circuit split has arisen over whether”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Inserting the definition of “claim” from § 3729 into § 4(f)(1) would result in the following: subparagraph (B) of section 3729(a)(1) of title 31 ... as added by subsection (a)(1), shall take effect as if enacted on June 7, 2008, and apply to all requestfs] or demandfs], whether under contract or otherwise, for money or property ... under the False Claims Act ... that are pending on or after that date.... This insertion, which juxtaposes the definition normally given to a request to the government for payment with the language “under the False Claims Act,” a statutory remedy pursued after an allegedly false claim is made, demonstrates the misfit between the definition and its placement in § 4(f)(1).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.