Adam Kanter v. The London Law Firm, P.A.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that plaintiffs supervisor had a need to know plaintiffs information where his duties included “determining eligibility ... [for] assignment or retention in sensitive duties”
• deferring where there were “no past practices or pronouncements” inconsistent with agency’s “current interpretation”
• reasoning that “debt recoupment” is “indisputably within DFAS’s sphere of responsibility.”
• deferring to an agency interpretation of a regulation set forth for the first time in a brief signed only by a United States Attorney
• considering whether “the official examined the record in connection with the performance of duties assigned to him”
• considering whether “the official examined the record in connection with the performance of duties assigned to him”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).