Carlin Communication, Inc., Etc. v. Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Company, Etc.

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that summary judgment is inappropriate where reasonable minds might differ on the inferences from the facts
• noting that, while the Supreme Court has employed “a number of different ‘tests’ for state action,” it “has indicated that the import of its holdings is that mere approval of, or acquiescence in, the initiatives of a private party is not sufficient to establish state action”
• “Although the Johnson Act explicitly applies only to injunctive relief, it has been judicially extended to bar declaratory judgment and damage actions as well.”
• “[T]he court may not weigh conflicting evidence to resolve disputed factual issues; if a genuine dispute is found, summary judgment must be denied.”
• “[T]he court may not weigh conflicting evidence to resolve disputed factual issues; if a genuine dispute is found, summary judgment must be denied.”
• “only reasonable inference that can be drawn from the record in this case is that the operative decisions [to restrict access to an IP] ... were made by Southern Bell [the carrier]”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).