Legal Opinion
Maydak v. Bonded Credit Co.
District Court, D. Oregon
Decided May 11, 1995No. Civ. No. 94-1539-HAPublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
HAGGERTY, District Judge:
Plaintiff, Keith Maydak, brings this action on behalf of himself and Confidential Services of America, Inc. (“CSA”), a Nevada corporation in which plaintiff maintains an ownership interest. Plaintiff seeks relief in the form of a declaratory judgment that neither he nor CSA is liable to defendant Bonded Credit Company (“Bonded”), a collection agency, for any amount of money allegedly owed because of calls made to a 1-900 telephone number. Plaintiff also seeks to enjoin Bonded from commencing any future action against himself or CSA in relation to the subject…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Caterpillar Inc. v. WilliamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1990
- Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Thompson Ex Rel. ThompsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- John C. McGuckin v. Dr. Smith John C. Medlen, Dr.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1992
- Skelly Oil Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1950
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Keith MAYDAK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BONDED CREDIT COMPANY INCORPORATED, Defendant-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1996