Search for: "Tam v. State" Results 621 - 640 of 1,447
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
16 Dec 2016, 10:09 am by Ron Coleman
I was going to do a post collecting all the briefs filed in the United States Supreme Court in Lee v. [read post]
15 Dec 2016, 2:17 pm by Paul Lyons
  In particular, NWC briefs have addressed compelling legal issues to prevent attempts to weaken the False Claims Act (FCA) before the United States Supreme Court in cases like State Farm Fire and Casualty Company v. [read post]
14 Dec 2016, 4:38 am by Edith Roberts
Reed Stephens and Alisha Johnson look at the court’s decision in State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. v. [read post]
8 Dec 2016, 4:34 am by Edith Roberts
” At The Employment Law Group, Scott Oswald takes a look at Tuesday’s opinion in State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. v. [read post]
7 Dec 2016, 4:09 am by Edith Roberts
’” And in State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. v. [read post]
1 Dec 2016, 1:17 pm by A. Brian Albritton
” Becker’s Hospital Review, “20 things to know about the Anti-Kickback Statute,” September 5, 2014.Amidst these ever growing AKS cases, I came across a remarkable case, United States ex rel Ruscher v. [read post]
1 Dec 2016, 1:17 pm by A. Brian Albritton
” Becker’s Hospital Review, “20 things to know about the Anti-Kickback Statute,” September 5, 2014.Amidst these ever growing AKS cases, I came across a remarkable case, United States ex rel Ruscher v. [read post]
28 Nov 2016, 3:54 am by Edith Roberts
United States, which asks whether the residual clause of the sentencing guidelines is unconstitutionally vague. [read post]
3 Nov 2016, 5:24 pm by Dennis Crouch
”  In re Tam, 808 F.3d at 1376 (Reyna, J., dissenting) (quoting Friedman v. [read post]
1 Nov 2016, 9:45 am by John Jascob
Although he received a $117,000 whistleblower bounty from the state of Texas, a New York court dismissed his qui tam suit there, in part because he violated the attorney ethics rules by unnecessarily including privileged information in his complaint. [read post]
28 Oct 2016, 11:49 am by MBettman
The Antoons argue that because the qui tam action was filed within one year of the dismissal of their state case, the state claim was preserved by Ohio’s saving statute, R.C. 2305.19(A). [read post]