Search for: "United States v. Tam"
Results 81 - 100
of 918
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
18 Aug 2016, 8:16 pm
The petition of the day is: United States, ex rel. [read post]
17 Dec 2013, 8:22 pm
Civil Liberties Union v. [read post]
20 Dec 2016, 6:56 am
United States ex rel. [read post]
6 Dec 2011, 1:03 pm
In United States ex rel. [read post]
8 Aug 2012, 7:14 am
The Department of Justice announced that the United States has partially intervened in a qui tam action pending in the Northern District of California. [read post]
22 Feb 2013, 1:50 pm
Department of Justice (DOJ) announced today that it will intervene in the qui tam False Claims Act suit filed by relator Floyd Landis against Lance Armstrong and others: United States ex rel. [read post]
13 Sep 2019, 11:43 am
The case is the United States and State of California ex rel. [read post]
16 Apr 2016, 12:50 pm
The case is United States ex rel. [read post]
8 Jun 2018, 6:40 am
Recently, in United States ex rel. [read post]
7 Feb 2014, 2:00 am
In United States ex rel. [read post]
29 Sep 2016, 8:35 am
In Lee v. [read post]
18 Nov 2019, 1:14 pm
Asfora arose from a different but related qui tam case which the United States resolved in October 2019. [read post]
25 Nov 2013, 10:19 am
At issue in United States ex rel Fair Laboratory Practices Associates v. [read post]
16 Sep 2024, 9:56 am
The case, which is filed in the Court of International Trade, is captioned United States v. [read post]
27 Oct 2013, 9:35 am
This is an unusual qui tam action, United States of America, Fair Laboratory Practices Associates v. [read post]
7 Aug 2020, 8:53 am
See United States v. [read post]
17 Jul 2011, 5:17 am
This week the United States District Court (USDA) Sixth Circuit (6th Cir.) confirmed that the Plaintiff was liable for filing frivolous Qui Tam Actions. [read post]
16 Apr 2010, 8:20 am
United States ex rel. [read post]
26 Feb 2019, 4:44 pm
”Arizona Medical illustrates that for the purpose of Rule 41(a), the United States is a party to a qui tam even if it has declined to intervene. [read post]
7 Jul 2011, 10:42 pm
No. 99–345, at 9 (1986), reprinted in 1986 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5266, 5274; see also United States v. [read post]
