Legal Opinion
Sparkle Hill, Inc. v. Interstate Mat Corporation
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
Decided June 3, 2015No. 14-1618PublishedCited by 61 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
KAYATTA, Circuit Judge.
Nine years ago, plaintiffs Sparkle Hill, Inc., and its vice president and owner William Warming (collectively, “Sparkle Hill”) received an unsolicited advertisement on Sparkle Hill’s fax machine from defendant Interstate Mat Corporation (“Interstate”). Not one to act hastily, Sparkle Hill filed suit against Interstate in federal district court almost five years later, alleging a violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“the Act”), 47 U.S.C. § 227. The Act allows recipients of unsolicited fax advertisements to recover from the sender $500 in statutory damages…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- American Pipe & Construction Co. v. UtahSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Phillips Petroleum Co. v. ShuttsSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Crown, Cork & Seal Co. v. ParkerSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- United States v. DuarteCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2001
- Waste Management Holdings, Inc. v. MowbrayCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2000
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by61 opinions
- United States v. TaylorCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2017
- Dumont v. Reily Foods Co.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2019
- Rife v. One West Bank, F.S.B.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2017
- United States v. HenryCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2017
- Vargas-Colon v. Fundacion Damas, Inc.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2017
56 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.