Yohay v. City of Alexandria Employees Credit Union, Inc.
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
827 F.2d 967 (1987)

- Written by Miller Jozwiak, JD
Facts
Stephen Yohay (plaintiff) was engaged in a custody dispute with his ex-wife, Patricia Ryan, who was an attorney. The City of Alexandria Employees Credit Union, Inc. (credit union) (defendant) was one of Ryan’s clients. The credit union also regularly requested credit reports from a credit bureau. Ryan requested the credit union’s manager to run a credit check on Yohay, later testifying that she made the request to ensure that Yohay was not using a joint credit card account the two had previously shared. The manager who obtained the report for Ryan was friends with Ryan and Ryan’s new husband. Although the credit union had a contract with the credit bureau for using the reports for appropriate purposes, later testimony established that virtually anyone who had access to the credit union could obtain a credit report. When Yohay learned that the credit bureau had given his credit information to the credit union, he contacted the credit union and learned that the credit union had disclosed his information. Yohay then sued the credit union for violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), seeking punitive damages for the allegedly willful violation. Yohay did not, however, seek compensatory damages. The credit union sued Ryan in a third-party complaint. The case went to a jury trial, which resulted in a $10,000 punitive-damages award for Yohay. The credit union and Ryan appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Kaufman, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,000 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

