Legal Opinion
United States ex rel. Lindenthal v. General Dynamics Corp.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided August 2, 1995No. Nos. 93-16690, 94-16005 and 93-16823PublishedCited by 33 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
CYNTHIA HOLCOMB HALL, Circuit Judge:
These appeals arise out of an action under the False Claims Act (FCA).1 The relators prosecuted the action on their own after the government declined to intervene.
The relators’ theory of the case is as follows: General Dynamics (GD) contracted with the Air Force (AF) to produce, and provide engineering drawings for, an elaborate radar system called MUTES. MUTES is a mobile system used to train pilots by simulating the signals of various enemy radar. After a period of years, the AF solicited bids on a competitive basis from other companies who wanted to…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Landgraf v. USI Film ProductsSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
- Crawford Fitting Co. v. J. T. Gibbons, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1987
- 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
- Republic National Bank of Miami v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- United States of America, Ex Rel. Kevin G. Kelly v. The Boeing CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1993
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by33 opinions
- United States ex rel. Schumer v. Hughes Aircraft Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1995
- United States ex rel. Oliver v. Parsons Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1999
- Walid A. Hindo v. University of Health Sciences/the Chicago Medical SchoolCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1995
- Evanow v. M/V NeptuneCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1998
- United States ex rel. Hochman v. NackmanCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1998
28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.