US 8TH CIRCUIT REJECTS TECHNICAL ACCURACY ARGUMENT

Maximum Possible Accuracy
Administrator
Site Admin
Posts: 11757
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 4:15 am

US 8TH CIRCUIT REJECTS TECHNICAL ACCURACY ARGUMENT

Postby Administrator » Tue Oct 07, 2014 11:46 am

FN2. We do not agree with the district court that the “technical accuracy” standard endorsed in Wilson v. Rental Research Services, Inc., Civ. No. 3–96–820 (D.Minn. Nov. 10, 1997), states the law of this circuit. On appeal, a divided panel reversed the district court, Wilson v. Rental Research Servs., Inc., 165 F.3d 642 (8th Cir.1999), that opinion was vacated, 191 F.3d 911 (8th Cir.1999), and the en banc court ultimately affirmed the judgment of the district court by an equally divided vote. 206 F.3d 810 (8th Cir.2000). But an affirmance by an equally divided court is not binding precedent. See Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison, 432 U.S. 63, 73 n. 8, 97 S.Ct. 2264, 53 L.Ed.2d 113 (1977); United States v. Spector, 793 F.2d 932, 936 (8th Cir.1986).

Taylor v. Tenant Tracker, Inc.
710 F.3d 824
C.A.8 (Ark.),2013.
March 28, 2013
David A. Szwak
Bodenheimer, Jones & Szwak, LLC
416 Travis Street, Suite 1404, Mid South Tower
Shreveport, Louisiana 71101
318-424-1400 / Fax 221-6555
President, Bossier Little League
Chairman, Consumer Protection Section, Louisiana State Bar Association

Return to “Front End Duties of the Credit Reporting Agencies: 15 U.S.C. 1681e(b)”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest