Legal Opinion

Phillippay v. Pacific Power & Light Co.

Washington Supreme Court

Decided July 3, 1922No. 16859PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMain, J.

— The plaintiff, as receiver for the Connell-Kahlotus Telephone Company, a corporation, brought this action seeking to recover damages from the defendant for the cost of metallicizing a telephone line in order to prevent inductive interference with the telephone service by the high power transmission line of the defendant, and for loss of profits occasioned by such interference. After the issues were framed, the cause came on for trial before the court and a jury, and resulted in a verdict in favor of the plaintiff in the sum of $1,400, special verdicts being also returned finding that the…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. SandersonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1886
  2. Hudson River Telephone Co. v. Watervliet Turnpike & Railway Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1892
  3. Evans v. Reading Chemical Fertilizing Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1894
  4. Cumberland Telegraph & Telephone Co. v. United Electric Railway Co.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1894
  5. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Co. v. Chicago, Lake Shore & South Bend Railway Co.Indiana Court of Appeals · 1910

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

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Southwestern Public Service Co. v. MooreTexas Supreme Court · 1930
  2. Postal Telegraph-Cable Co. v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co.California Supreme Court · 1927
  3. Yamhill County Mutual Telephone Co. v. Yamhill Electric Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1924
  4. Georgia Power Co. v. ParkerCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1934
  5. Hale v. Farmers Electric Membership CorporationNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1940

6 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