Spintman v. Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Co.
Court of Appeals of Maryland
1Opinion of the CourtFinan, J.
Daniel A. Spintman and Judith A. Spintman, his wife (appellants), are subscribers to the “262” exchange service of the appellee, Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Company of Maryland. Appellants brought an action in assumpsit for themselves, and on behalf of all other similarly situated subscribers to the “262” exchange service in the City of Bowie, and other areas in Prince George’s County, Maryland, that are not within the area designated for telephone rate services as the “Washington, D. C. Metropolitan Exchange Area” (D. C. Area). The first count of appellant’s declaration claims…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Montana-Dakota Utilities Co. v. Northwestern Public Service Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1951
- Lutz v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1934
- Mayor of Baltimore v. SitnickCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1969
- Poe v. Mayor and City Council of BaltimoreCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1966
- Hooper v. Mayor of BaltimoreCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1859
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by21 opinions
- Arnold v. Prince George's CountyCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1973
- Legislative Utility Consumers' Council v. Public Service Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1979
- Indiana Bell Telephone Co. v. FriedlandIndiana Court of Appeals · 1978
- Bell Atlantic of Maryland, Inc. v. Intercom Systems CorporationCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2001
- Air Lift, Ltd. v. Board of County CommissionersCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1971
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.