United States ex rel. Dick v. Long Island Lighting Co.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
PIERCE, Senior Circuit Judge:
Herein, we examine the jurisdictional requirements of 31 U.S.C. § 3730(e)(4) of the False Claims Act. We hold that the qui tam plaintiffs, W. Gordon Dick and John P. Daly, Jr., appellants, did not satisfy the statute’s jurisdictional requirements. Accordingly, we conclude that this suit was properly dismissed by the district court.
I
This case arises out of the events discussed at length in County of Suffolk v. Long Island Lighting Co., 907 F.2d 1295 (2d Cir.1990). Familiarity with these events is assumed. We discuss herein only those additional aspects we believe…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- United States v. American Trucking AssociationsSupreme Court of the United States · 1940
- Montclair v. RamsdellSupreme Court of the United States · 1883
- County of Suffolk v. Long Island Lighting Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1990
- United States v. Jose NunezCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1978
- United States Ex Rel. Dick v. Long Island Lighting Co.District Court, E.D. New York · 1989
3Cited by101 opinions
- United States of America, Ex Rel. Springfield Terminal Railway Company David A. Fink v. Francis X. QuinnCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1994
- Richard M. Yuhasz v. Brush Wellman, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2003
- United States of America, Ex Rel. Kreindler & Kreindler, Cross-Appellee v. United Technologies Corporation, Cross-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1993
- Chen-Cheng Wang, AKA C.C. Wang, an Individual and Ex Rel. The United States of America v. Fmc CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1992
- United States Ex Rel. Ladas v. Exelis, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2016
96 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.