Louisville, Henderson & St. Louis Railway Co. v. Southern Seating & Cabinet Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that a call was a “sales call” because defendant, in addition to verifying plaintiff’s information, attempted to sell her a program”
• referring to Dish Network, “[t]he FCC’s ‘guidance’ on this subject, however, is not binding on the court, is not entitled to deference, and ‘has force only to the extent the [FCC] can persuade [the court] to the same conclusion’ ”
• “Plaintiff’s ratification theory fails because plaintiff does not allege that Sempris or Provell accepted any benefit that stemmed from Quality’s telemarketing calls to plaintiff.”
• “Consent for one purpose does not equate to consent for all purposes.”
• “Rather, to the extent the FCC’s orders establish a rule, it is that the scope of a consumer’s consent depends on its context and the purpose for which it is given. Consent for one purpose does not equate to consent for all purposes.”
• complaint adequately alleged an agency relationship where a company authorized the caller to make calls and enter into contracts on its behalf, and where the company had the right to control the “manner and means” of the calls, including by developing a call script

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).