Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

U.S. EX REL. OSTRAGER v. CONTRACTORS, 317 U.S. 562 (1943)

317 U.S. 562

Type: Opinion
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: Federal
Date: 1943-01-18
Topic: general

U.S. EX REL. OSTRAGER v. CONTRACTORS, 317 U.S. 562 (1943) UNITED STATES EX REL. OSTRAGER ET AL. v.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed U.S. EX REL. OSTRAGER v. CONTRACTORS, 317 U.S. 562 (1943). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

U.S. EX REL. OSTRAGERv. CONTRACTORS,317 U.S. 562(1943)

UNITED STATES EX REL. OSTRAGER ET AL.v. NEW ORLEANS CHAPTER, ASSOCIATED

GENERAL CONTRACTORS, INC. ET AL.

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT.

No. 236.

Argued December 10, 11, 1942.

Decided January 18, 1943.

Decided upon the authority ofUnited States ex rel. Marcusv.Hess. ante, p. 537.127 F.2d 649, reversed.

CERTIORARI,post, p. 613, to review the affirmance of a

judgment dismissing the complaint in aqui tamaction under

R.S. §§ 5438 and 3490-3493.

Mr. William Katz, with whomMr. Burnett Wolfsonwas on the brief, for petitioners.Mr. R. Emmett Kerrigan, with whomMr. Eberhard P. Deutschwas on the brief, for respondents.

At the request of the Court,Solicitor General Fahyfiled a brief (on which also wereMessrs. Robert L. SternandFred E.Strine) on behalf of the United States, asamicus curiae.

MR. JUSTICE BLACK delivered the opinion of the Court.

This action is substantially similar to that inUnited Statesex rel. Marcusv.Hess, ante, p. 537. Relying on §§ 5438 and 3490-93, Revised Statutes, the petitioner charges that the respondents caused the governmentPage 563$7,620 damages by submitting fraudulent collusive bids on a hospital constructed with Federal Public Works Administration financial assistance. The petitioner in a qui tam action asks double damages plus $2,000 from each of seventeen respondents. The respondents had previously been indicted by the United States government in a criminal action and had paid fines totalling $5,000.

The respondents answered on the merits, made other pleadings not relevant at this stage of the case, and offered two special defenses: that the action placed them in double jeopardy in violation of the Fifth Amendment and that the statutes involved did not provide a basis for such a cause of action. The District Court, without reaching the merits, dismissed the complaint on the theory of double jeopardy. The Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the complaint but rested its conclusion on the belief that no claim against the United States was involved since the United States was not a party to the contract. It relied heavily on theHesscase as decided by the Circuit Court.

For the reasons set forth in our opinion in theHesscase, we believe that the decision below should be reversed.Reversed.

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER joins in this opinion but concurs on the question of double jeopardy for the reasons set forth in his opinion inUnited States ex rel. Marcusv.Hess, ante, p. 537. MR. JUSTICE JACKSON dissents for the reasons set forth in his opinion in the same case.

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY took no part in the consideration or disposition of this case.Page 564