Legal Opinion

Christenson & Arndt, Inc. v. Wisconsin Telephone Co.

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided June 2, 1953PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBroadfoot, J.

The defendant relies upon the “privity of contract” rule, and cites several cases from other jurisdictions that uphold the rule. Illustrative of these cases is that of Mentzer v. New England Telephone & Tel. Co. 276 Mass. 478, 177 N. E. 549, which appears with an annotation in 78 A. L. R. 654. Under those cases the duty of a telephone company has been limited to its agreement to place.its subscribers in communication with one another by affording to each a mechanical connection, through its central office, with other subscribers. These cases hold that, although a telephone company breaches…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Mentzer v. New England Telephone & Telegraph Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1931
  2. Boldig v. Urban Telephone Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1937

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Clark v. CorbyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1977
  2. Abresch v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1956
  3. Purtell v. TehanWisconsin Supreme Court · 1966
  4. Libowitz v. Lake Nursing Home, Inc.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1967
  5. Conrad v. EvansWisconsin Supreme Court · 1955

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API