Thibodeaux v. Rupers

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that there was no permissible purpose where defendant’s “belief that Plaintiff was concealing assets was based on nothing more than naked mistrust”
• holding that § 1681b is not strict liability statute
• finding purpose impermissible where defendant obtained a consumer report on his sister’s es tranged husband to investigate his finances
• finding it impermissible to obtain spouse’s credit report to find out if spouse was concealing assets or engaging in other financial misconduct
• denying summary judgment to defendant on claim that defendant obtained plaintiff’s consumer report without a permissible purpose
• see Yohay v. City of Alexandria Emp. Credit Union, 827 F.2d 967, 971-72 (4th Cir.1987); Hansen v. Morgan, 582 F.2d 1214, 1219-20 (9th Cir.1978)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).