Allison Engine v. US
From ScotusWiki
Authorship:
Contents |
[edit] Briefs and Documents
Docket: 07-214
Merits briefs
- Brief for Petitioner Allison Engine Company, Inc., et al.
- Brief for Respondents Roger L. Sanders and Roger L. Thacker
- Reply Brief for Petitioner Allison Engine Company, Inc., et al.
Amicus briefs
- Motion for Leave to File Brief Amicus Curiae and Brief of Amicus Curiae Continental Common, Inc., and Transcontinental Realty Investors, Inc., in Support of Petitioner (motion granted 1/7/08)
- Brief for the United States Chamber of Commerce, the American Hospital Association, and the American Health Care Association in Support of Petitioner
- Brief for Marsha Farmer in Support of Respondents
- Brief for Professor Joel D. Hesch in Support of Respondents
- Brief for the Taxpayers Against Fraud Education Fund in Support of Respondents
- Brief for Senator Charles E. Grassley in Support of Respondents
- Brief for the United States of America in Support of Respondents
- Brief for Grayson & Kubli, P.C., in Support of Respondents</div>
Certiorari filings
[edit] Pre-Argument Articles
[edit] Grant write-up
The following is modified from a post by Lyle Denniston that originally appeared on SCOTUSblog.
The Court said it would decide whether the Federal False Claims Act applies only to claims of misspent funds when those claims are presented to a federal government agency, or whether it also covers claims submitted to a federal contractor if the claim ultimately will be paid with federal money. The case is Allison Engine v. U.S. ex rel. Sanders (07-214). This is an appeal by a group of four defense subcontractors who supplied generators to power a class of Navy guided missile destroyers — the Arleigh Burke Class. The lower courts are split on the question at stake.
[edit] Argument Preview
[edit] Oral Argument Recap
[edit] Opinion Analysis
[edit] Links and further information
[edit] Blogosphere
- BLT: Did Allison Engine Case Throw a Rod? (February 26, 2008)
