Michael Chesbro v. Best Buy Co., Inc.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
The opinion filed on October 17, 2012 [697 F.3d 1230] is amended as follows:
Slip op. at 12572, 2nd full ¶, lines 1-4: Replace <Any assertion that Chesbro either consented to receiving these communications or that the communications were not unsolicited is unpersuasive on this summary judgment record. > with <Any assertion that the calls were not ‘unsolicited advertisements’ because the statutory definition of that term excludes communications made with the recipient’s ‘prior express invitation or permission’ is unsupported by the record, which shows, instead, that Chesbro repeatedly…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Lopez v. SmithCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2000
- Skidmore v. Swift & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1944
- United States v. Mead Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 2001
- Satterfield v. Simon & Schuster, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2009
- Evergreen Safety Council v. RSA Network Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2012
3Cited by54 opinions
- Ron Golan v. Veritas Entertainment, LLCCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2015
- Aranda v. Caribbean Cruise Line, Inc.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 2016
- Gragg v. Orange Cab Co.District Court, W.D. Washington · 2014
- Hanley v. Green Tree Servicing, LLCDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 2013
- Payton v. Kale Realty, LLCDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 2016
49 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.