American Fidelity Fire Insurance v. Stewart

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• stating that the WireWatch description “does not satisfy the FCC’s truth-in-billing requirement and constitutes an unreasonable practice within the meaning of section 201(b)”
• stating that the WireWatch description “does not satisfy the FCC’s truth-in-billing requirement and constitutes an unreasonable practice within the meaning of section 201(b)”
• “Where the exact size of the class is unknown but general knowledge and common sense indicate that it is large, the numerosity requirement is satisfied.”
• “Where the exact size of the class is unknown but general knowledge and common sense indicate that it is large, the numerosity requirement is satisfied.”
• “Based on the allegations and admissions in the pleadings, the Court concludes that the defendant’s practice of billing for its Wire-Watch program using the description ‘Non-regulated Services’ constitutes a violation of section 201(b) of the Telecommunications Act as a matter of law.”
• “Based on the allegations and admissions in the pleadings, the Court concludes that the defendant’s practice of billing for its WireWatch program using the description ‘Non-regulated Services’ constitutes a violation of section 201(b) of the Telecommunications Act as a matter of law.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).