Bryant v. TRW, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
689 F.2d 72 · 1982
Citation profile
34 federal appellate · 6 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 77 later decisions — most recently March 2018 · most notably Guimond v. Trans Union Credit Information Co. (1995), Cahlin v. General Motors Acceptance Corp. (1991)
34 federal appellate · 6 district · 3 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
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1681 · 15 U.S.C. § 1681A · 15 U.S.C. § 1681E · 15 U.S.C. § 1681N · 15 U.S.C. § 1681O · 42 U.S.C. § 1988
Relies on Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody · Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc. · Pennhurst State School & Hospital v. Halderman · Northcross v. Board of Education of Memphis City Schools · Briggs v. Connecticut
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 77 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““[A]ny written, oral, or other communication of any information by a consumer reporting agency bearing on a consumer’s credit worthiness, credit standing, credit capacity, character, general reputation, personal characteristics, or mode of living which is used or expected to be used or collected in whole or in part for the purpose of serving as a factor in establishing the consumer’s eligibility for:.... (B) employment purposes.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“liability does not flow automatically from the fact that a credit reporting agency ... reports inaccurate information. Instead, liability flows from failure to follow (1) reasonable procedures (2) to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information (3) concerning the individual about whom the information relates.... [T]he standard of conduct by which the trier of fact must judge the adequacy of (consumer reporting) agency procedures is what a reasonably prudent person would do under the circumstances.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“1. Defendant was negligent in that it failed to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of information about the plaintiff; 2. Defendant reported inaccurate information about the plaintiff; 3. Plaintiff was injured; and 4. Defendant’s negligence was the proximate cause of such injury.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.