Legal Opinion
Lovejoy v. AT&T CORP.
California Court of Appeal
Decided October 5, 2001No. C034423PublishedCited by 55 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
CALLAHAN, J.
One of the fastest growing subjects of consumer complaints is the practice of “slamming,” wherein one telephone carrier company surreptitiously gains control over the service provided by another without notice to the customer. Slamming is prohibited by the law of this state. (Pub. Util. Code, § 28B9.5.) In this case, plaintiff Robert Lovejoy, individually and doing business as Lovejoy Drilling, filed a lawsuit claiming that defendant AT&T Corporation (ATT) “slammed” his toll-free 800 number and that he lost his business as a result.
Plaintiff appeals from a judgment in favor…
2Cases cited30 opinions
- Lazar v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1996
- Kansas City Southern Railway Co. v. CarlSupreme Court of the United States · 1913
- American Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Central Office Telephone, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1998
- Leal v. Holy Spirit Ass'n for Unification of World ChristianityCalifornia Supreme Court · 1988
- Mirkin v. WassermanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1993
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by55 opinions
- Wilson v. Hewlett-Packard Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2012
- Adams v. Northern Illinois Gas Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 2004
- Jolley v. Chase Home Finance, LLCCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2013
- Lopez v. Specialty Restaurants Corp. (In Re Lopez)United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit · 2002
- Oestreicher v. Alienware Corp.District Court, N.D. California · 2008
50 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.