Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The historical antecedents of qui tam statutes lie in Roman and Anglo-Saxon law. [3] Roman criminal prosecutions were typically initiated by private citizens and beginning no later than the Lex Pedia, it became common for Roman criminal statutes to offer a portion of the defendant's forfeited property to the initiator of the prosecution as a reward. [3]
Qui tam is an abbreviated form of the Latin legal phrase qui tam pro domino rege quam pro se ipso in hac parte sequitur ("he who brings a case on behalf of our lord the King, as well as for himself") [11] In a qui tam action, the citizen filing suit is called a "relator".
The qui tam rules are part of the False Claims Act, a Civil War-era law that was enacted in response to reports of wholesale plundering by suppliers of military goods and ammo to the War Department.
qui tam: abbreviation of qui tam pro domino rege quam pro se ipso in hac parte sequitur, meaning "who pursues in this action as much for the king as himself". In a qui tam action, one who assists the prosecution of a case is entitled to a proportion of any fines or penalties assessed. quid pro quo: this for that
A qui tam (in the name of the king) action may be brought by any party (as a relator) against an entity that is fraudulently collecting money from the United States government by filing false claims. The party bringing the suit – the relator – must have possession of information substantiating the claim of fraud against the government.
A Trenton federal judge has dismissed a False Claims Act suit against Sanofi and Bristol-Myers Squibb over anti-blood clot drug Plavix, citing a change in the composition of the partnership that ...
The Assembly approved the measure, S-784, in a 79-0 vote. The Senate passed the bill in April without opposition. It now goes to Gov. Phil Murphy, who has not indicated whether he supports the bill.
An action by a common informer was termed a "popular" or qui tam action. [3] A legal action by an informer had to be brought within a year of the offence, unless a specific time was prescribed by the statute. [3] The informer had to prove his case strictly and was given no assistance by the court, being denied discovery. [4] [clarification needed]