Legal Opinion

City of Anaheim v. Pacific Bell Telephone Co.

California Court of Appeal

Decided June 21, 2004No. G029261PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

RYLAARSDAM, J.

Plaintiff City of Anaheim appeals from a judgment entered in favor of defendant Pacific Bell Telephone Company. The court sustained defendant’s demurrer to the complaint without leave to amend on the ground it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because exclusive jurisdiction rests with the California Public Utilities Commission (PUC). Plaintiff contends the superior court has concurrent jurisdiction to adjudicate which of the parties must bear the cost of relocating defendant’s overhead facilities underground.

We issued an opinion holding that the PUC had exclusive…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. People v. StanleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1995
  2. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1996
  3. Hartwell Corporation v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 2002
  4. Vila v. Tahoe Southside Water UtilityCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1965
  5. People Ex Rel. Orloff v. Pacific BellCalifornia Supreme Court · 2003

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. City of Allen v. Public Utility Commission, Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin)2005
  2. RLH Industries, Inc. v. SBC Communications, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2005
  3. Anchor Lighting v. Southern California Edison Co.California Court of Appeal · 2006
  4. City of Allen and Coalition of Cities v. Public Utility Commission of Texas Oncor Electric Delivery Company And Centerpoint Energy, Inc., Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin)2005
  5. City of Allen and Coalition of Cities v. Public Utility Commission of Texas Oncor Electric Delivery Company And Centerpoint Energy, Inc., Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin)2005

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API