Legal Opinion

Andrews v. Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Co.

District Court, District of Columbia

Decided May 9, 1949No. Civil Action 1345-49PublishedCited by 20 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

HOLTZOFF, District Judge.

The plaintiff alleges in her complaint that she received a letter from the defendant telephone company to the effect that the company has been advised by the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia that, his office is in possession of competent evidence that the plaintiff’s telephone is being used in violation of the statutes prohibiting gambling in the District of Columbia and that the United States Attorney has requested the company to disconnect this telephone equipment and discontinue the telephone service. The letter further contains a statement that…

2Cited by20 opinions

  1. Sokol v. Public Utilities CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1966
  2. Telephone News System, Inc. v. Illinois Bell Telephone Co.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 1963
  3. State v. Western Union Telegraph Co.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1953
  4. Kukatush Mining Corporation (n.p.l.) v. Securities and Exchange CommissionCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1962
  5. Pike v. Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1955

15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API