Stevenson v. TRW Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
987 F.2d 288 · 1993
Citation profile
28 federal appellate · 21 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 113 later decisions — most recently June 2025 · most notably Philbin v. Trans Union Corp. (1996), Cousin v. Trans Union Corp. (2001)
28 federal appellate · 21 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. § 1632 (§ 122 of the Truth in Lending Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 1681 · 15 U.S.C. § 1681E · 15 U.S.C. § 1681G · 15 U.S.C. § 1681I · 15 U.S.C. § 1681N · 15 U.S.C. § 1681O
Relies on Mullins Coal Co. v. Director · Union Carbide Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board · Huntzinger v. United States · Smith v. Chapman · Pinner v. Schmidt
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 113 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“knowingly and intentionally committed an act in conscious disregard for the rights”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“... insure that consumer reporting agencies exercise their grave responsibilities with fairness, impartiality, and a respect for the consumer’s right to privacy”, [as soon as] require that consumer reporting agencies adopt reasonable procedures for meeting the needs of commerce for consumer credit, personnel, insurance, and other information in a manner which is fair and equitable to the consumer, with regard to the confidentiality, accuracy, relevancy, and proper utilization of such information in accordance with the requirements of this subchapter. Véanse, además: Stevenson v. TRW Inc., 987 F.2d 288 (5to Cir. 1993); Cahlin v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 936 F.2d 1151 (11mo Cir. 1991); Milbauer v. TRW, Inc., 707 F. Supp. 92 (D.E. N.Y. 1989); Rush v. Macy’s New York, Inc., 596 F. Supp. 1540 (1984); Thornton v. Equifax, Inc., 619 F.2d 700 (1980); Hauser v. Equifax, Inc., 602 F.2d 811 (1979); Roseman v. Retail Credit Co., Inc., 428 F. Supp. 643 (1977); Conley v. TRW Credit Data, 381 F. Supp. 473 (1974).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[W]e believe it is appropriate to draw upon the wealth of UCC and TILA case law in determining the meaning of “clear and conspicuous” under the FCRA. The UCC defines conspicuous as “so written, displayed, or presented that a reasonable person against [whom] it is to operate ought to have noticed it.” U.C.C. § 1-201(10). When evaluating a disclaimer of warranty against this standard, we have looked to how many times a customer was made aware of the notice, whether the notice was on the front or back of the document in question, whether the language of the notice was emphasized in some way (such as by bolding the text or by employing all capitals) and whether the notice was set off from the rest of the document so as to draw attention to it.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.