Baltimore-Washington Telephone Co. v. Hot Leads Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• refusing to expand liability under federal statute for aiding and abetting where statute did not expressly provide for such liability
• recognizing two exceptions to the general rule: (1) “where the officer or agent has an ‘independent legal stake in achieving the corporation’s legal objective’”; and (2) “where the acts of the officers were unauthorized by the corporate defendant[]”
• finding that individuals could be held personally liable for TCPA violations
• finding that individuals could be held personally liable for TCPA violations
• refusing to expand liability under federal statute for aiding and abetting where statute did not expressly provide for such liability
• rejecting a claim for aiding-and-abetting a TCPA violation but stating that individual corporate defendants can be liable under the TCPA because of their involvement in sending unsolicited faxes or causing such faxes to be sent

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).