Lovejoy v. AT&T CORP.

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).