Veno v. AT&T CORP.

How courts have described this case

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

• 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)
• “A court is to determine whether a request for a consumer report has been 10 made under ‘false pretenses’ by looking at the permissible purposes for which consumer 11 reports may be obtained under 15 U.S.C. § 1681b of the FCRA.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).