Legal Opinion
Lutz Appellate Services, Inc. v. Curry
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Decided July 28, 1994No. Civ. A. 94-3985PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM
BARTLE, District Judge.
As new technology emerges, the appearance of related legal issues seems never to be far behind. This is such a case. It concerns the prohibitions on the use of the now ubiquitous facsimile (“fax”) machine under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (“Act”), 47 U.S.C. § 227.
Plaintiff, Lutz Appellate Services, Inc., filed the present action against a former employee, Rodney Curry, and his business partner, Douglas Taylor, individually and trading as Curry & Taylor. Plaintiff seeks damages for two alleged violations of the Act. The case is currently…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Hishon v. King & SpaldingSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Jenkins v. McKeithenSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
- City of Cincinnati v. Discovery Network, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1993
- United States v. Stephen A. KnoxCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1994
- Destination Ventures, Ltd. v. Federal Communications CommissionDistrict Court, D. Oregon · 1994
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Missouri Ex Rel. Nixon v. American Blast Fax, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2003
- Payton v. Kale Realty, LLCDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 2016
- Phillips Randolph Enterprises, LLC. v. Adler-Weiner Research Chicago, Inc.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 2007
- Missouri Ex Rel. Nixon v. American Blast Fax, Inc.District Court, E.D. Missouri · 2002
- Reardon v. Uber Technologies, Inc.District Court, N.D. California · 2015
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.