Skip to main content
Federal & State Lawfederalstatelaw.com
Home/Federal/Cases
California Court of Appeal· 10/5/2001

Lovejoy v. AT&T CORP.

Citations

  • 111 Cal. Rptr. 2d 711
  • 92 Cal. App. 4th 85

How courts have described this case

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

  • holding claim that carrier switched customer's long-distance service without his knowledge or consent was not barred by the filed rate doctrine
  • stating “awarding damages for. [the .tortious conduct pled] would neither involve the court in tariff setting nor enforce discrimination against other AT & T customers”
  • “[T]he only intent by a defendant necessary to prove a case of fraud is the intent to induce 11 reliance. Moreover, liability is affixed not only where the plaintiff’s reliance is intended by the 12 defendant but also where it is reasonably expected to occur.”
  • “[T]he only intent by a defendant necessary to prove a case of fraud is the intent to induce reliance. Moreover, liability is affixed not only where the plaintiff’s reliance is intended by the defendant but also where it is reasonably expected to occur.” (emphases omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Callahan

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

37 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

29 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named Lovejoy v. AT&T CORP.

1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.