Legal Opinion
Smith v. SBC Communications Inc.
Supreme Court of New Jersey
Decided January 21, 2004PublishedCited by 37 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Zazzali
In Weinberg v. Sprint Corp., 173 N.J. 233, 801 A.2d 281 (2002), we concluded that the filed rate doctrine effectively barred plaintiffs from seeking monetary and injunctive relief against telecommunications carriers under the Consumer Fraud Act, N.J.S.A. 56:8-1 to 20, because the doctrine precluded plaintiffs from pleading a claim of ascertainable loss capable of surviving a motion for summary judgment. In this appeal, we are asked to consider whether that same doctrine insulates a retailer of telecommunications services, which is not itself a telecommunications carrier, from an action…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Printing Mart-Morristown v. Sharp Electronics Corp.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1989
- Keogh v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1922
- MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1994
- Maislin Industries, U. S., Inc. v. Primary Steel, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1990
- Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. v. HallSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by37 opinions
- Real v. Radir Wheels, Inc.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 2009
- Shelton v. Restaurant.com, Inc.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 2013
- NCP Litigation Trust v. KPMG LLPSupreme Court of New Jersey · 2006
- Hoffman v. Hampshire Labs, Inc.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 2009
- Richardson v. STANDARD GUAR. INS.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 2004
32 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.