Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
Michael Tankersley v. James Almand
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Decided September 13, 2016No. 15-1081Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partDavis, Senior Circuit Judge
Maryland Rules of Procedure 16-811.5 and 16-811.6, adopted in 2014, require that each attorney admitted to practice as a member of the Maryland bar disclose her social security number (“SSN”) to the treasurer of the Client Protection Fund (“the Fund”) or face suspension of her license to practice law. Michael Tankers-ley, an attorney who has long been admitted to practice in Maryland but has apparently never actually lived, worked, or practiced in the state, contends that, as applied to him, these Maryland Rules violate the federal Privacy Act of 1974. Section 7(a)(1) of the Privacy Act…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Will v. Michigan Department of State PoliceSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Kentucky v. GrahamSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Gonzaga University v. DoeSupreme Court of the United States · 2002
- Morton v. MancariSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Blessing v. FreestoneSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.