Alden Joe Daniel, Jr. v. Ellie M. Cantrell

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that Dirkes concluded that any person could be liable for unlawful disclosures “only by misreading the Act”
• imputing attorney’s knowledge to client for statute of limitations purposes and quoting Veal v. Geraci, 23 F.3d 722, 725 (2d Cir. 1994)
• affirming the district court’s decision to impute the knowledge of an attorney to the plaintiff when determining a statute of limitations issue under 18 U.S.C. § 2710(c)(3)
• courts should \avoid interpretations of a statute which would render portions of it superfluous.\
• \We avoid interpretations of a statute which would render portions of it superfluous.\
• using objective standard in context of VPPA

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).