Spears v. Traders & General Insurance

How courts have described this case

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

• observing that the defendant agency “assembles . . . records . . . to support safety 38 regulatory and enforcement activities,” not to “make such records available to prospective em- ployers,” even though a statute requires it also to do the latter (quotation omitted)
• describing the requirements “[t]o qualify as a ‘consumer reporting agency’ regulated by [the] FCRA”
• affirming dismissal of drivers’ claims for damages under the Fair Credit Reporting Act because “the government did not become a ‘consumer reporting agency’ . . . through its administration of the MCMIS database and the PSP disclosure program”
• “Courts have consistently concluded that government entities are not “consumer reporting agenc[ies]” because they do not collect information for the purpose of furnishing it to third parties.”
• “Courts have consistently concluded that government entities are not ‘consumer reporting agenc[ies]’ because they do not collect information for the purpose of furnishing it to third parties.”
• “[O]ne short, unavoidably redundant catchall phrase is a far cry from . . . the pointless incorporation . . . of one . . . requirement after another.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).