Saunders v. Branch Banking and Trust Co. of VA

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that the presence of one State Farm factor can justify “a substantial award of punitive damages”
• holding that a bank’s internal records of ongoing correspondence could support a conclusion that the bank intended not to furnish accurate information to the reporting agencies
• concluding that a “jury could reasonably conclude that [a furnisher’s] decision to report [a] debt without any mention of a dispute was misleading”
• holding that a jury “could reasonably conclude” that reporting the debt without mention of the dispute was misleading
• holding that a bank’s internal records of ongoing correspondence could support a conclusion that the bank intended not to furnish accurate information to the reporting agencies
• holding that a private litigant cannot bring an action for violation of Section 1681s-2(a) relating to the FCRA’s prohibition against the reporting of information with actual knowledge of errors

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).