Edwards v. Toys\ R\ US

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that a chief information officer’s personal knowledge of payment card industry standards could be inferred by his position
• holding that 19 corporations can be held vicariously liable for the FCRA violations of their agents
• stating that question of fact existed as to whether person involved in FCRA violation was defendant’s agent, and thus whether vicarious liability attached
• “Evidence is not ‘new[]’ .. . if it is submitted in direct response to proof adduced in opposition to a motion.”
• “Evidence is not ‘new[]’ .. . if it is submitted in direct response to proof adduced in opposition to a motion.”
• “Evidence is not ‘new,’ however, if it is submitted in direct 23 response to proof adduced in opposition to a motion.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).