Legal Opinion

United States of America, Ex Rel. James M. Hagood v. Sonoma County Water Agency, James M. Hagood v. Sonoma County Water Agency

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided April 2, 1991No. 89-16290, 89-16360PublishedCited by 182 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

NOONAN, Circuit Judge:

James M. Hagood brought suit under the qui tarn provision of the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729-3733, alleging its violation by the Sonoma County Water Agency (the Water Agency). The district court dismissed his third amended complaint for failure to state a cause of action. On appeal, the United States filed a brief as amicus curiae, arguing that the district court was incorrect in its reasoning but right in its result, because the court had no jurisdiction of Hagood’s complaint. The jurisdictional issue is novel. We decide it in favor of jurisdiction and reverse…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Heckler v. Community Health Services of Crawford County, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1984
  2. United States Ex Rel. Marcus v. HessSupreme Court of the United States · 1943
  3. Rex Trailer Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1956
  4. United States of America Ex Rel. Roland A. Leblanc, Plaintiff-Relator v. Raytheon Company, Inc.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1990
  5. Pettis ex rel. United States v. Morrison-Knudsen Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1978

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

3Cited by182 opinions

  1. Edwin P. Harrison, and United States of America, Party in Interest v. Westinghouse Savannah River CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1999
  2. Bly-Magee v. CaliforniaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2001
  3. United States v. United Healthcare Insurance Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2016
  4. United States of America, Ex Rel. Kreindler & Kreindler, Cross-Appellee v. United Technologies Corporation, Cross-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1993
  5. 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

177 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