Legal Opinion
Snohomish County Public Utility District No. 1 v. Broadview Television Co.
Washington Supreme Court
Decided November 16, 1978No. 44660PublishedCited by 22 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtRosellini, J.
In this action to recover unpaid charges for the use of the respondent's utility poles, summary judgment was granted against the appellants. The Superior Court found that there was no disputed issue of material fact and that the affirmative defenses were insufficient to relieve the appellants of liability.
The respondent is engaged in the distribution and sale of electrical energy in Snohomish County, pursuant to RCW Title 54. It licenses the use of pole space not required for its own purposes to various parties, among whom are the appellants. The rates charged are uniform. The conditions of…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Parker v. BrownSupreme Court of the United States · 1943
- City of Lafayette v. Louisiana Power & Light Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Connolly v. Union Sewer Pipe Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1902
- Kelly v. KosugaSupreme Court of the United States · 1959
- Bement v. National Harrow Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1902
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by22 opinions
- Public Utility District No. 1 v. Washington Public Power Supply SystemWashington Supreme Court · 1986
- Chemical Bank v. Washington Public Power Supply SystemWashington Supreme Court · 1983
- King County v. Taxpayers of King CountyWashington Supreme Court · 1985
- Monroe v. SolizWashington Supreme Court · 1997
- Earle M. Jorgensen Co. v. City of SeattleWashington Supreme Court · 1983
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.