Pryor v. Reno, 171 F.3d 1281 (11th Cir. 1999). · Go Syfert
Search
Pryor v. Reno, 171 F.3d 1281 (11th Cir. 1999). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
22 citation events (21 in the last 25 years) across 8 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Jeffrey-Allen Hill-Yisra’el v. Tax Commissioner Samuel Wade McCord, et al. (gamd, 2026-01-15)
Treatment trajectory · 1999 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1999 2012 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited "see" Jeffrey-Allen Hill-Yisra’el v. Tax Commissioner Samuel Wade McCord, et al.
M.D. Ga. · 2026 · signal: see · confidence high
See Corbitt, 115 F.4th at 1350 (quoting Pryor v. Reno, 171 F.3d 1281 , 1288 n.10 (11th Cir. 1999)).
discussed Cited "see" Whalen v. Morice
E.D. La. · 2021 · signal: see · confidence high
See Pryor v. Reno, 171 F.3d 1281 , 1288 n.10 (11th Cir. 1999), rev’d on other grounds, 528 U.S. 1111 (2000); Condon v. Reno, 155 F.3d 453, 464-65 (4th Cir. 1998), rev’d on other grounds, 528 U.S. 141 (2000).
discussed Cited "see" Watts v. City of Hollywood
S.D. Fla. · 2015 · signal: see · confidence high
See Collier v. Dickinson, 477 F.3d 1306, 1308 (11th Cir.2007) (citing Pryor v. Reno, 171 F.3d 1281 , 1288 n. 10 (11th Cir.1999), rev’d on other grounds, 528 U.S. 1111 , 120 S.Ct. 929 , 145 L.Ed.2d 807 (2000)); Ela v. Orange Cnty.
cited Cited "see" Mary Ann Collier v. Fred O. Dickinson, III
11th Cir. · 2007 · signal: see · confidence high
See Pryor v. Reno, 171 F.3d 1281 , 1288 n. 10 (11th Cir.1999), rev’d on other grounds, 528 U.S. 1111 , 120 S.Ct. 929 , 145 L.Ed.2d 807 (2000).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Rollins v. City of Albert Lea
D. Minnesota · 2014 · signal: see also · confidence low
For example, in Travis v. Reno, the court concluded that there is no legitimate expectation of confidentiality — and, therefore, no constitutional right to privacy — in an individual’s name, address, telephone number, photograph, social security number, driver identification number, and medical or disability information. 12 F.Supp.2d 921, 925 (W.D.Wis.1998), rev’d on other grounds, 163 F.3d 1000 (7th Cir.1998); see also Pryor v. Reno, 171 F.3d 1281 , 1288 n. 10 (11th Cir.1999) (stating that “there is no constitutional right to privacy in motor vehicle record information”), rev’d …
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Kennedy v. City of Braham
D. Minnesota · 2014 · signal: see also · confidence low
For example, in Travis v. Reno, the court concluded that there is no legitimate expectation of eonfi-dentiality^and, therefore, no constitutional right to privacy — in an individual’s name, address, telephone number, photograph, social security number, driver identification number, and medical or disability information. 12 F.Supp.2d 921, 925 (W.D.Wis.1998), rev’d on other grounds, 163 F.3d 1000 (7th Cir.1998); see also Pryor v. Reno, 171 F.3d 1281 , 1288 n. 10 (11th Cir.1999) (stating that “there is no constitutional right to privacy in motor vehicle record information which the DPPA e…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Rasmusson v. Chisago County
D. Minnesota · 2014 · signal: see also · confidence low
For example, in Travis v. Reno, the court concluded that there is no legitimate expectation of confidentiality — and, therefore, no constitutional right to privacy — in an individual’s name, address, telephone number, photograph, social security number, driver identification number, and medical or disability information. 12 F.Supp.2d 921, 925 (W.D.Wis.1998), rev’d on other grounds, 163 F.3d 1000 (7th Cir.1998); see also Pryor v. Reno, 171 F.3d 1281 , 1288 n. 10 (11th Cir.1999) (stating that “there is no constitutional right to privacy in motor vehicle record information”), rev’d …
cited Cited "see, e.g." Arakawa v. Sakata
D. Haw. · 2001 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See id.; see also Pryor v. Reno, 171 F.3d 1281, 1288 (11th Cir.1999) (also finding no privacy protection in motor vehicle records) overruled on other grounds by Condon, 528 U.S. 141, 120 S.Ct. 666 .
Pryor
v.
Reno
98-6261.
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Apr 6, 1999.
171 F.3d 1281
1999 WL 187050
Cited by 14 opinions  |  Published
Bill PRYOR, Attorney General for the State of Alabama, State of Alabama, Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

Janet RENO, Attorney General of the United States, United States of America, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 98-6261.

United States Court of Appeals,

Eleventh Circuit.

May 11, 2000.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama (No. CV-97-D-1396-N); Ira

DeMent, Judge.

ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

[*~1281–1283]

Before TJOFLAT, Circuit Judge, and GODBOLD and HILL, Senior Circuit Judges.

[*~1282–1284]

BY THE COURT:

The Supreme Court of the United States, having vacated and remanded this case for further consideration in the light of Reno v. Condon, 528 U.S. ----, 120 S.Ct. 666, 145 L.Ed.2d 587 (2000) it is therefore

[*~1284–1286]

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED, that the judgment of the district court in the above-referenced case is hereby VACATED and the case is REMANDED to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama for further consideration in light of Reno v. Condon, 528 U.S. ----, 120 S.Ct. 666 (2000).