Edward Seamans v. Temple University

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that when assessing the reasonableness of an investigation, a factfinder must balance the potential harm from inaccuracy against the burden to the furnisher
• holding that information is “inaccurate” for purposes of the FCRA if it is “misleading in such a way and to such an extent that [it] can be expected to have an adverse effect”
• holding that “FCRA explicitly precludes private suits for failure to comply with [§ 1681-2(a) ], 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(c), and instead provides for enforcement of that provision by federal and state officials, 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(d).”
• stating that the reasonableness of a consumer reporting agency’s procedure is normally a question for trial
• stating that “where a given notice contains only scant or vague allegations of inaccuracy, a more limited investigation may be warranted.”
• stating that “where a given notice contains only scant or vague allegations of inaccuracy, a more limited investigation may be warranted.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).