Buhl v. U.S. Sprint Communications Co.
Tennessee Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
REID, Chief Justice.
The primary issue presented on this appeal is whether the installation of a telephone cable within an existing railroad right of way, pursuant to an agreement between the telephone company and the railroad company, is a “taking” under the law of eminent domain, for which the owners of the freehold estates are entitled to compensation. The record supports the judgment of the Court of Appeals reversing the trial court’s dismissal of the freeholders’ claims against the telephone company. The ancillary issue involving the ownership of the York tract is resolved in favor…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Grand Trunk Railroad v. RichardsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1876
- Doty v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1910
- Railway Co. v. Telford's ExecutorsTennessee Supreme Court · 1890
- Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Railway v. BellTennessee Supreme Court · 1931
- Home Telephone Co. v. People's Telephone & Telegraph Co.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1911
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by22 opinions
- Marcus Cable Associates, L.P. v. KrohnTexas Supreme Court · 2002
- Meighan v. U.S. Sprint Communications Co.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1996
- John H. Isaacs v. Sprint CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2001
- In Re WorldCom, Inc.United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · 2006
- Hallaba v. Worldcom Network Services Inc.District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · 2000
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.