Legal Opinion
Metro East Center for Conditioning and Health v. Qwest Communications International, Inc.
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Decided August 16, 2002No. 02-1359PublishedCited by 48 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge.
When Metro East Center for Conditioning and Health chose a new vendor for local phone service, it neglected to name an interstate carrier, so one was assigned at random — Qwest Communications, which played that role for six months (February through July 2001) before Metro East specified a different carrier. Qwest’s tariff on file with the Federal Communications Commission had two pertinent provisions: First, it set the monthly minimum fee per line (the “presubscription charge”) that each customer must pay; second, it provided that any dispute would be resolved by…
2Cases cited31 opinions
- Buckley v. ValeoSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. Wilderness SocietySupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Christiansburg Garment Co. v. Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Green Tree Financial Corp.-Alabama v. RandolphSupreme Court of the United States · 2000
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by48 opinions
- Ilah M. Tinder v. Pinkerton SecurityCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2002
- Walther v. Sovereign BankCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2005
- Frank H. Boomer, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. At & T Corporation, a New York CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2002
- Jung v. Association of American Medical CollegesDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2004
- Russell Musnick v. King Motor Company of Fort Lauderdale, d.b.a., King Auto MallCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2003
43 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.