92 F. Supp. 2d 1055 - Hoefer v. Fluor Daniel, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
2 district ·
Relationships
Applies 31 U.S.C. § 3729 (False Claims Act) · 42 U.S.C. § 1985
Relies on Great American Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Novotny · Hill v. United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners, Local 25 · Barefoot v. Estelle · School District No. 1J, Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc. · Bridges 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“cannot conspire with its own employees or agents.”
1 later decision 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.