Legal Opinion
Russell L. Swarthout v. Michigan Bell Telephone Company
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Decided October 22, 1974No. 74-1226PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Per curiam
The district court granted appellee’s motion for summary judgment on the ground that the statute of limitations bars appellant’s claim that between January, 1963, and April, 1968, appellee intercepted, divulged or published certain of appellant’s telephonic communications in violation of 47 U.S.C. § 605 (1970). Even assuming, without deciding, that appellant properly pleaded the Michigan fraudulent concealment statute, Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 600.5855 (1968), and that appellant had no reason to discover his claim prior to December, 1968, we affirm.
The Federal Communications Act provides for a…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Burnett v. New York Central RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
- United States v. BorinCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1954
- Richard S. Prather v. Neva Paperbacks, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1971
- Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company v. Leonard DisspainCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1960
- Hale v. Ralston Purina Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1970
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Maurizio v. GoldsmithDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2000
- Sharon Margaret Pavlak, Cross-Appellee v. John R. Church, Individually and in His Capacity as Chief of Police for the City of Boise, Cross-AppellantsCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1984
- Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. RuckerCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1976
- Nordlicht v. New York Telephone Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1985
- MFS International, Inc. v. International Telcom Ltd.District Court, E.D. Virginia · 1999
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.