Duncan v. Handmaker’s Empirical Analysis
149 F.3d 424 · 1998
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently November 2019 · most notably Bakker v. McKinnon (1998), Phillips v. Grendahl (2002)
11 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Harrison v. PPG Industries, Inc. · Northrop v. Hoffman of Simsbury, Inc. · Hansen v. Morgan · Comeaux v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Co. · Tate III v. Boeing Helicopters
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“in connection with the underwriting of insurance.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Jason Ray Reynolds Matthew Rausch v. Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. Hartford Fire Insurance Company, Ajene Edo v. Geico Casualty Company, and Geico General Insurance Company Geico Indemnity Company Government Employees Insurance Company, Subsidiaries of Geico Corporation · Jason Ray Reynolds Matthew Rausch v. Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. Hartford Fire Insurance Company, Ajene Edo v. Geico Casualty Company, and Geico General Insurance Company Geico Indemnity Company Government Employees Insurance Company, Subsidiaries of Geico Corporation“in connection with a credit transaction... involving ... collection of an account of, the consumer,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“Unfortunately for [the defendants], we must reject their effort to shoehorn the use of the [the plaintiffs’] consumer reports into § 1681b(3)(E). Basic principles of statutory construction prevent us from interpreting § 1681b(3)(E) in a fashion that allows a party to obtain a consumer report for a purpose only tangentially related to the extension of credit. The rule of ejusdem generis suggests that when general words-sueh as those that appear in § 1681b(3)(E)-follow specific terms, the general words should be construed “to embrace only objects similar in nature to those objects enumerated by the preceding specific words.” Section 1681b(3)(A) of the FCRA focuses on the extension of credit and the collection of debt. It permits a party to obtain a consumer report “in connection with a credit transaction ... involving the extension of credit to, or review or collection of an account of, the consumer.” If we were to interpret § 1681b(3)(E) too broadly, we would render the specificity of § 1681b(3)(A) meaningless. We also would inadvertently transform § 1681b(3)(E) into a provision that enabled information-seekers to circumvent the restrictions of the FCRA.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.