HOLMAN ET AL.

v.

BUTLER, EXECUTRIX, ET AL.

Citator

Cited By (17 total)

• Acme Process Equip. Co. v. The United States, 347 F.2d 509 (Ct. Cl. 1965)
  …nd each contains a separate and distinct false claim for which the fine may be validly imposed. E. g., United States v. Ueber, 299 F. 2d 310, 313 (C.A. 6, 1962); United States v. National Wholesalers, 236 F. 2d 944, 950 (C.A. 9, 1956), cert. denied, 353 U.S. 930, 77 S.Ct. 719, 1 L.Ed.2d 724 (1957). We are faced, rather, with one false claim, which was denied by the Government and thereafter reasserted by the plaintiff. The court holds that the defendant cannot recover more than once for the very same false…
• Reilly v. United States, 513 F.2d 147 (8th Cir. 1975)
  …rt. denied, 379 U.S. 837, 85 S.Ct. 73, 13 L.Ed.2d 44 (1964); Hungerford v. United States, 307 F. 2d 99, 101 (9th Cir. 1962); Quinton v. United States, 304 F. 2d 234, 235 (5th Cir. 1962); Davis v. Foreman, 239 F. 2d 579 (7th Cir. 1956), cert. denied, 353 U.S. 930, 77 S.Ct. 719, 1 L.Ed.2d 724 (1957). But see Tessier v. United States, 269 F. 2d 305 (1st Cir. 1959). In medical malpractice actions, the claim “accrues” when the claimant discovers, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have discovered,…
• United States v. Lennard L. Mead, 426 F.2d 118 (9th Cir. 1970)
  …” and thus were not false. A second defense was that the government had not shown intent to defraud the government. The government would have us recede from our statement in United States v. National Wholesalers, 9th Cir., 236 F. 2d 944, cert. den., 353 U. S. 930, 77 S.Ct. 719, 1 L.Ed.2d 724. But we adhere to our position that an actual intent to deceive must be proved. We cannot believe that the Congress intended to catch the hapless with the heavy penalties which may be imposed under the False Claims Act.…

  ← 1 / 2 →