Re: Re: Can you find this court case? Sunhawk, Cahlin never proved or provided enough evidence to the court for a finding that the information being reported was inaccurate. That's why he lost, he didn't meet his initial burden. The information has to be inaccurate to meet the findings required for negligent non-compliance. I know it isn't said a lot, but, if the information being reported isn't inaccurate, don't go to court! I can email you the case, if ok with you. Sassy
Re: Re: Can you find this court case? The question in Henson was not whether the information was inaccurate, it was, but whether Henson notified TU of the inaccuracy and triggered it's reinvestigation burden beyond the original source of the information. Sassy
Re: Re: Re: Can you find this court case? Sorry, no nearby law library where I could do it, and I'm not on WESTLAW. My practice doesn't require that sort of thing, for the most part.
Re: Re: Can you find this court cas Flacorps, A little OT, but you do seem to know a lot about procedures. I noticed you posted something regarding "admissions" regarding J.rabbits suit. You said admissions were not done until after discovery or something like near it's completion. But, in my first set of interrogatories by CRA, they included about 50 requests for admissions. We still have about 5 more months of discovery left. Thought this was kind of odd. After reading, it seems that admissions can be requested at any time?? Is this right? I am planning on answering the admissions requests within 30 days, any thought/suggestions?
Found it...thanks Do I understand this right? When the lawyer references: Cahlin v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 936 F.2d 1151, 1156 (11th Cir. 1991); Spence v. TRW, Inc., 92 F.3d 380, 381 (6th Cir. 1996); Guimond v. Trans Union Credit Info. Co., 45 F.3d 1329, 1333 (9th Cir. 1995); Henson v. CSC Credit Servs., 29 F.3d 280, 284 (7th Cir. 1994) He is probably stating that the actual quote comes from Henson v. CSC Credit Servs. and all the other cases like Cahlin v. GM and Spence v. TRW used and reference the Henson v. CSC case?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Can you find this court case? It sounds like that to me. Here is what Id. means: After (but only after) you have cited an authority in full, you may use an appropriate short form citation for subsequent citations to that case, as described in ALWD Rule 11. Id. is used to refer to the immediately preceding authority. Id. is short for the Latin idem, meaning â??the same.â? Do not use ibid (as opposed to id.) in legal writing. ALWD Rule 11.3. If id. can be used appropriately (i.e., if you are referring to an authority that you just cited, it is the preferred short form cite. When the reference is to an authority that has been previously cited in full, but is not the immediately preceding authority, use the appropriate short form of the regular citation. For example, instead of id. or Loving v. Goodnight, 999 S.W.2d 123, 126 (Tex. 1999), you would use Loving, 999 S.W.2d at 126.
Re: Re: Re: Can you find this court case? Are you referring to the Cahlin case? If so, yes, please email it to me In my case, the CA does not have any original account records to support their CRA listing. They sent me a letter saying so. Therefore, as stated in the United States v. Performance Capital Management, they MUST delete when receiving a CRA dispute because they can't prove the accuracy of the account. Since they can't prove the accuracy of the account, I would therefore then think it is inaccurate and if the CA refuses to delete despite being required to do so and I notify the CRA that the CA must delete according to previous case law and they also refuse to delete then they are listing inaccurate info.. I think?
