Legal Opinion

Barasch v. Bell Telephone Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided March 18, 1992No. 201 E.D. 1990, 202 E.D. 1990PublishedCited by 18 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION OF THE COURT

PAPADAKOS, Justice.

In this appeal we are called upon to address the legality of “Caller*ID” service which Appellant, The Bell Telephone Company of Pennsylvania (Bell), proposes to offer to its customers. For the reasons set forth below, we agree with the Commonwealth Court that “Caller*ID” violates our Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act, 18 P.C.S. §§ 5701-5781, and hence cannot now be offered in Pennsylvania. The facts on which this appeal is based are as follows.

On January 18, 1989, Bell filed a revision to Tariff Pa. PUC No. 1, proposing that various new…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Ballou v. State Ethics CommissionSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1981
  2. Barasch v. Pennsylvania Public Utility CommissionCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1990
  3. Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence v. Pennsylvania Public Utility CommissionCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1989

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. TIMES PUB. CO., INC. v. MichelCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1993
  2. Wertz v. Chapman TownshipCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1998
  3. PG Publishing Co. v. County of WashingtonCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1994
  4. Ohio Domestic Violence Network v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1994
  5. Commonwealth v. ParrellaSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1992

13 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