Legal Opinion
Pacific Bell Wireless, LLC v. Public Utilities Commission
California Court of Appeal
Decided June 20, 2006No. G034991PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
FYBEL, J.
Introduction
After an investigation, a nine-day evidentiary hearing before an administrative law judge, and a review by the full California Public Utilities Commission of the State of California (the Commission), the Commission imposed a multimillion dollar fine against Pacific Bell Wireless, LLC, doing business as Cingular Wireless (Cingular) for two interrelated violations of law. First, the Commission found Cingular’s policy of charging its customers an early termination fee to cancel a wireless telephone service contract without permitting any type of grace period was an…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Grayned v. City of RockfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Grayned v. City of RockfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Hines v. DavidowitzSupreme Court of the United States · 1941
- Maynard v. CartwrightSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
- Crosby v. National Foreign Trade CouncilSupreme Court of the United States · 2000
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Cellphone Termination Fee CasesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2011
- Sprint PCS Assets, L.L.C. Ex Rel. Sprint Telephony PCS, LP v. City of Palos Verdes EstatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2009
- Perrine v. EI DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND CO.West Virginia Supreme Court · 2010
- Southern California Edison Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2014
- Bullseye Telecom, Inc. v. Cal. P.U.C.California Court of Appeal · 2021
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.