Oneta S. Cole v. U.S. Capital, Incorporated, Autonation USA Corporation, and Jerry Gleason Chevrolet, Incorporated

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a plaintiff stated a claim under § 1681b when her credit infor‐ mation was shared but no firm offer of credit was extended
• holding that a plaintiff stated a claim when a lender obtained her credit data without giving her the benefit of a firm offer, one of the permissible purposes under FCRA
• holding that a plaintiff stated a claim when a lender obtained her credit data without giving her the benefit of a firm offer, one of the permissible purposes under FCRA
• holding that a plaintiff stated a claim when a lender obtained her credit data without giving her the benefit of a firm offer, one of the permissible purposes under FCRA
• holding that a plaintiff stated a claim when a lender obtained her credit data without giving her the benefit of a firm offer, one of the permissible purposes under FCRA
• concluding that there was no firm offer where the “relatively small amount of credit combined with the unknown limitations of the offer — that it must be used to purchase a vehicle' — raises questions of whether the offer has value to the consumer.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).