Legal Opinion
United States Ex Rel. Downy v. Corning, Inc.
District Court, D. New Mexico
Decided October 13, 2000No. Civ.96-0378 BB/DJSPublishedCited by 21 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
BLACK, District Judge.
THIS MATTER comes before the Court for consideration of Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. 55) the fourth amended complaint filed in this case by Mary J. Downy (“Relator”). The Court has reviewed the submissions of the parties and the relevant law. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will deny the motion to dismiss.
BACKGROUND
This is a qui tam action filed under the federal False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729-3733 (Supp.2000) (“FCA”). Relator originally filed a complaint under seal, as she was required to do under Section 3730(b)(2). The United States…
2Cases cited32 opinions
- Vermont Agency of Natural Resources v. United States Ex Rel. StevensSupreme Court of the United States · 2000
- Morrison v. OlsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
- 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
- United States of America, Ex Rel. Kreindler & Kreindler, Cross-Appellee v. United Technologies Corporation, Cross-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1993
- United States of America, Ex Rel. Kevin G. Kelly v. The Boeing CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1993
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by21 opinions
- United States v. Regence Bluecross Blueshield Of UtahCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2006
- United States Ex Rel. Franklin v. Parke-Davis, Division of Warner-Lambert Co.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 2001
- Hayes v. Department of EducationDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2014
- In re Cardiac Devices Qui Tam LitigationDistrict Court, D. Connecticut · 2004
- United States Ex Rel. Sikkenga v. Regence Bluecross BlueshieldCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2006
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.