United States Ex Rel. Yesudian v. Howard University

U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit · Decided 1998-09-01

Cited by 244 later decision(s) in our corpus · see the citation network in Lexace

Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case

From the opinion

KAREN LeCRAFT HENDERSON, Circuit Judge, dissenting in part: The district court’s Rule 50 judgment on Yesudian’s False Claims Act retaliation claim should be affirmed because Yesudian never produced evidence to show, as the majority acknowledges he must, “that his employer was aware of his protected activity.” Maj. Op. at 743. Such a showing requires a plaintiff to have put the employer on notice not only that he…

Read the full opinion (source) ↗


Lexace provides legal information, not legal advice, and no attorney–client relationship is created. Citation figures are counts of later citing opinions in our corpus and may be incomplete; always read and Shepardize the full opinion before relying on it.