Manno v. American General Finance Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing plain language of § 1681t(b)(1)(B) indicates that it was intended to preempt only state regulations enacted after the passage of 1681(t)
• providing that, when possible, statutory provisions should be read harmoniously
• finding that Section 1681t(b)(1)(F) only preempts state sfafutory claims
• finding, at the summary judgment stage, that malice in this context may be shown by “the continued publication of a falsehood after the injured party requests a retraction”
• “[T]he statutory approach is the one most consistent with a close analysis of the statutory text and with the congressional intent underlying [the newer preemption provision].”
• “Congress’s explicit exclusion of a Massachusetts and a California statutory cause of action from preemption by t(b)(l)(F) is a strong indication that Congress intended t(b)(l)(F) to preempt statutory claims.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).