Legal Opinion
Bird v. CHESAPEAKE AND POTOMAC TELEPHONE COMPANY
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Decided November 28, 1962No. 3081PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
HOOD, Chief Judge.
Appellant sued the telephone company for damages resulting from its alleged negligence in omitting his name and number from the telephone directory. The trial court ruled that the company’s liability was limited by a tariff provision on file with the Public Utilities Commission of the District of Columbia. 1 On the basis of that ruling, and with the consent of the company, judgment was entered for appellant for $39. Appellant contends that the limitation of liability was invalid and ineffective.
Under Code 1961, 43-401, an increase in rates by a public utility can be granted…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Hazel B. McTighe v. New England Telephone and Telegraph CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1954
- Hamilton Employment Service, Inc. v. New York Telephone Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1930
- Baird v. Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 2001
- Cole v. Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co.California Court of Appeal · 1952
- Lenawee County Gas & Electric Co. v. City of AdrianMichigan Supreme Court · 1920
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Warner v. Southwestern Bell Telephone CompanySupreme Court of Missouri · 1968
- Behrend v. Bell Telephone Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1976
- State ex rel. Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. District Court of the Second Judicial DistrictMontana Supreme Court · 1972
- Abel Holding Co., Inc. v. American Dist. Tel.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1977
- People's Counsel of the District of Columbia v. Public Service CommissionDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1984
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.