Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
Universal Service v. AT&T Corporation
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Decided September 20, 2010No. 09-3059, 09-3077Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partHolmes, Circuit Judge
I write separately to take issue with the majority’s analysis of the breach-of-contract claim of the California residential consumers. See Maj. Op. at 1203-08. Specifically, I believe that a straightforward interpretation of the AT & T Consumer Service Agreement (“CSA”) and AT & T Service Guide (“CSG”) ineluctably dictates the conclusion that the California residential consumers agreed to pay the specific Universal Connectivity Charge (“UCC”) listed in the Rates and Charges section of the CSG. Although the majority concludes that AT & T hamstrung the applicability of this specific UCC with a…
2Cases cited36 opinions
- Greenfield v. Philles Records, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 2002
- Merritt Hill Vineyards Inc. v. Windy Heights Vineyard, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1984
- Vermont Teddy Bear Co. v. 538 Madison Realty Co.New York Court of Appeals · 2004
- Express Industries & Terminal Corp. v. New York State Department of TransportationNew York Court of Appeals · 1999
- Beal Savings Bank v. SommerNew York Court of Appeals · 2007
31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.