Legal Opinion
Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. City of Seattle
District Court, W.D. Washington
Decided June 7, 1926No. 530PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtNeterer, District Judge
(after stating the facts as above). The motion to dismiss must be denied. Some cause of action is, I think, stated.
Has equity jurisdiction, or has the plaintiff a speedy and adequate remedy at law ? The property in the streets of the defendant city may be classified as installed (1) by the Independent Company prior to March 9, 1912; (2) by the Sunset Company prior to January 9, 1907; (3) by the plaintiff company between March 8, 1912, and July, 1923, under the Sunset franchise; (4) by the plaintiff company since July, 1923, under temporary permits. The plaintiff admits that all property…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Davis v. WakeleeSupreme Court of the United States · 1895
- Terrace v. ThompsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1923
- Walla Walla City v. Walla Walla Water Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1898
- Dawson v. Kentucky Distilleries & Warehouse Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1921
- Boise Artesian Hot & Cold Water Co. v. Boise CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1909
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Huston v. Iowa Soap Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1936
- Travelers Insurance v. Ross Electric of Washington, Inc.District Court, W.D. Washington · 1988
- Fisher Flouring Mills Co. v. VierhusCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1935
- McDermott v. City of SeattleDistrict Court, W.D. Washington · 1933
- CA Dept. of Toxic Substances Control v. Jim Dobbas, Inc.District Court, E.D. California · 2023
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.