Legal Opinion
Spielholz v. Superior Court of Los Angeles Cty.
California Court of Appeal
Decided February 8, 2001No. B131655PublishedCited by 36 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
CROSKEY, J.
Petitioners Marcia Spielholz, Debra Petcove, and Wireless Consumers’ Alliance, Inc. (collectively, Spielholz), sued Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Company and AT&T Wireless Services, Inc. (collectively, AT&T), alleging that AT&T falsely advertised a “seamless calling area” throughout Southern California and that it failed to disclose gaps or “dead zones” where wireless telephone users are unable to connect calls. AT&T moved to strike the allegations for monetary relief, based on title 47 United States Code 1 section 332(c)(3)(A), which provides that a state may not “regulate…
2Cases cited30 opinions
- San Diego Building Trades Council v. GarmonSupreme Court of the United States · 1959
- Hines v. DavidowitzSupreme Court of the United States · 1941
- Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Medtronic, Inc. v. LohrSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
- English v. General Electric Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1990
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by36 opinions
- Farm Raised Salmon CasesCalifornia Supreme Court · 2008
- Union Ink Co., Inc. v. AT&T CORP.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 2002
- Krumme v. Mercury InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2004
- Qualified Patients Assn. v. City of AnaheimCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2010
- Azteca Construction, Inc. v. ADR Consulting, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2004
31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.