Legal Opinion

United States ex rel. Bayarsky v. Brooks

District Court, D. New Jersey

Decided January 17, 1945No. Civil Action No. 1956PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MEANEY, District Judge.

Motion is made on behalf of defendants for dismissal.

This is a qui tam action brought by the relator, David Bayarsky, on January 5, 1942 on behalf of the United States and in his own behalf under the informer statute, Revised Statutes 3490-3493, 31 U.S.C.A. §§ 231-234, to recover damages and statutory penalties, counsel fees and costs.

The action is based upon the claim that the defendants cheated and defrauded the United States by selling to the United States sand and stone to be used on Works Progress Administration projects at prices arbitrarily fixed by defendants in…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. United States Ex Rel. Rodriguez v. Weekly Publications, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1944
  2. United States Ex Rel. Sherr v. Anaconda Wire & Cable Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1944

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. United States ex rel. Merena v. SmithKline Beecham Corp.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2000
  2. United States ex rel. Bayarsky v. BrooksCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1946
  3. United States ex rel. Bayarsky v. BrooksDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 1953
  4. United States Ex Rel. Bayarsky v. BrooksCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1954
  5. United States of America Ex Rel. Robert J. Merena v. Smithkline Beecham Corporation United States of America, United States of America Ex Rel. Kevin J. Spear the Berkeley Community Law Center Jack Dowden v. Smithkline Beecham Clinical Laboratories, Inc. United States of America, United States of America Ex Rel. Glenn Grossenbacher Charles W. Robinson, Jr. v. Smithkline Beecham Clinical Laboratories, Inc. United States of AmericaCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2000

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API