Legal Opinion
Bloemer v. Ezell
District Court, W.D. Kentucky
Decided July 17, 1953No. Civ. No. 2140PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MARTIN, Circuit Judge (sitting by designation) .
Findings of Fact
I
The defendants Fanny M. Ezell and Madolene Smalley, partners, doing business as *815Louisville Secretarial Service, conducted during the period involved herein the business of receiving and transmitting telephone messages, a substantial number of which were regularly and recurrently received and transmitted in interstate commerce.
II
Defendants had no switchboard for the reception of calls, but maintained in their small office a telephone instrument for each subscriber. Connected to such instruments were lights which flashed when the…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Skidmore v. Swift & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1944
- A. H. Phillips, Inc. v. WallingSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Roland Electrical Co. v. WallingSupreme Court of the United States · 1946
- Wood v. Central Sand & Gravel Co.District Court, W.D. Tennessee · 1940
- West Kentucky Coal Co. v. WallingCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1946
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Telephone Answering Service, Inc. v. Arthur J. Goldberg, Secretary of the United States Department of LaborCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1961
- Elsis v. EvansCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1958
- Mahoney v. MahoneyDistrict Court, E.D. Tennessee · 1960
- Mitchell v. Telephone Answering Service, Inc.District Court, D. Puerto Rico · 1959
- Wirtz v. Office Communications Co.District Court, M.D. North Carolina · 1965
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.