Legal Opinion
Hardy v. Claircom Communications Group, Inc.
Court of Appeals of Washington
Decided May 27, 1997No. 38684-1-I, 38846-1-IPublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtAgid, J.
Michael J. Hardy and Michael Lair appeal the trial courts’ orders dismissing their claims against Claircom Communications Group, Inc., doing business as AT&T Wireless Services (AT&T Wireless) and GTE Airfone, Inc. (Airfone), respectively, arguing that both courts erred by concluding that their claims are preempted by 47 U.S.C. § 332 and barred by the filed tariff doctrine. We agree with the trial courts that their claims are preempted and barred by the filed tariff doctrine and affirm.
FACTS
AT&T Wireless and Airfone are both providers of air-to-ground radiotelephone services for passengers on…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Texas & Pacific Railway Co. v. Abilene Cotton Oil Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1907
- Cowiche Canyon Conservancy v. BosleyWashington Supreme Court · 1992
- Reiter v. CooperSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
- 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
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Tenore v. AT&T Wireless ServicesWashington Supreme Court · 1998
- Weinberg v. Sprint Corp.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 2002
- Qwest Corp. v. KellyCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2002
- Blaylock v. First American Title InsuranceDistrict Court, W.D. Washington · 2007
- Tenore v. AT & T WIRELESS SERVICESWashington Supreme Court · 1998
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.