Mikes v. Strauss’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 6 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 51 later decisions — most recently February 2019 · most notably United States Hopper v. Anton (1996), Mikes v. Straus (2001)
9 federal appellate · 6 district · 5 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.
Relationships
Applies 31 U.S.C. § 3729 (False Claims Act) · 31 U.S.C. § 3730 (False Claims Act)
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle · United Steelworkers v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co. · Mitsubishi Motors Corporation v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth Inc Soler Chrysler-Plymouth Inc · Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp.
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 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a]ny employee who is discharged ... by his or her employer because of lawful acts done ... in furtherance of an action under [the FCA], including investigation for, initiation of, testimony for, or assistance in an action filed or to be filed under this section, shall be entitled to all relief necessary to make the employee whole.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“[A]n employee must supply sufficient facts from which a reasonable jury could conclude that the employee was discharged because of activities which gave the employer reason to believe that the employee was contemplating a qui tam action against it.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“"While § 3730(h)’s protections do serve a role in deterring fraud against the government, that particular provision is primarily remedial in nature. We agree with plaintiff that, in the abstract, the existence of § 3730(h) may assure reluctant participants in fraudulent activities that their objections will not result in their being fired and thereby facilitates whistleblowing, a largely deterrent function. However, the retaliatory discharge suit itself has little, if any, effect on deterring the fraudulent activity. Instead, it is designed to provide a remedy to a relator unlawfully terminated due to her whistleblowing. Plaintiff has made no showing that arbitration will in any way inhibit this function of the statutory scheme. Moreover, plaintiff seeks only monetary damages, a remedy fully available under the instant arbitration agreement. The fact that plaintiff is still offered a forum to fully vindicate her claim ensures that “the statute will continue to serve both its primary remedial and secondary deterrent functions.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.