Doe v. Chao
http://dbpedia.org/resource/Doe_v._Chao an entity of type: Thing
Doe v. Chao, 540 U.S. 614 (2004), is a decision by the United States Supreme Court that interpreted the statutory damages provision of the Privacy Act of 1974. Prior to the case, lower federal courts had split over whether plaintiffs whose rights were violated were automatically entitled to the statutory minimum damages award of $1000, or whether those plaintiffs had to prove that they had suffered at least some actual damage from the privacy breach (which would then be raised to $1000 if their actual damages were less than that).
rdf:langString
rdf:langString
Doe v. Chao
rdf:langString
rdf:langString
Buck Doe v.Elaine L. Chao, Secretary of Labor
xsd:integer
487591
xsd:integer
1063285051
rdf:langString
Breyer
rdf:langString
Ginsburg
xsd:integer
2
rdf:langString
Stevens, Breyer
rdf:langString
Rehnquist, O'Connor, Kennedy, Thomas; Scalia
rdf:langString
Privacy Act of 1974,
<second>
172800.0
<second>
25920.0
xsd:integer
614
xsd:integer
540
xsd:gMonthDay
--12-03
xsd:integer
2003
rdf:langString
Doe v. Chao,
xsd:gMonthDay
--02-24
xsd:integer
2004
rdf:langString
Buck Doe v. Elaine L. Chao, Secretary of Labor
rdf:langString
Plaintiffs must prove that some actual damages resulted from a federal agency's intentional or willful violation of the Privacy Act of 1974 in order to qualify for the statutory minimum award of $1000 provided for such a violation under that statute. Fourth Circuit affirmed.
rdf:langString
Doe v. Chao
rdf:langString
Souter
rdf:langString
Doe v. Chao, 540 U.S. 614 (2004), is a decision by the United States Supreme Court that interpreted the statutory damages provision of the Privacy Act of 1974. Prior to the case, lower federal courts had split over whether plaintiffs whose rights were violated were automatically entitled to the statutory minimum damages award of $1000, or whether those plaintiffs had to prove that they had suffered at least some actual damage from the privacy breach (which would then be raised to $1000 if their actual damages were less than that). The Court's 6–3 decision determined that the latter interpretation was correct; as a result, it will be more difficult for a plaintiff to prevail as he or she must now prove both a violation and some damages before being entitled to recovery. This result is generally applauded by proponents of greater freedoms for the press, as a contrary result may have made government agencies more reluctant to release information out of fear of lawsuits.
xsd:nonNegativeInteger
7340