SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS CO. v. KELLY

Nos. 91-TX-846, 92-TX-252, 92-TX-288, 92-TX-289, 92-TX-338, 92-TX-373 and 92-TX-576 to 92-TX-578.

642 A.2d 106 (1994)

SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY, Cable & Wireless Communications Inc., Metromedia Commissions Corporation nee CSI nee ITT, MetroCom nee TMS, RealCom Office Communications, Inc. nee Contel, ALLNET Communication Services, Inc., Mid-Atlantic Telecom, Inc., Long Distance Service of Washington, Inc., Appellants, v. Sharon Pratt KELLY, Sharon Morrow, & District of Columbia, Appellees. SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY, Cable & Wireless Communications, Inc., Metromedia Communications Corporation, Contel Office Communications, Inc., ALLNET Communication Services, Inc., Long Distance Service of Washington, Inc., Appellants, v. Sharon Pratt KELLY, Sharon Morrow, & District of Columbia, Appellees. ALLNET COMMUNICATION SERVICES, INC., Appellant, v. Sharon Pratt KELLY, Sharon Morrow, & District of Columbia, Appellees. CABLE & WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS, ICN., Appellant, v. Sharon Pratt KELLY, Sharon Morrow, & District of Columbia, Appellees. CONTEL OFFICE COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Appellant, v. Sharon Pratt KELLY, Sharon Morrow, & District of Columbia, Appellees. AMERICAN TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH COMPANY, AT & T Communications of Washington, D.C., Appellants, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Appellee. METROMEDIA COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION, Appellant, v. Sharon Pratt KELLY, Sharon Morrow, & District of Columbia, Appellees. CABLE & WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Appellant, v. Sharon Pratt KELLY, Sharon Morrow, & District of Columbia, Appellees. RICHARD J. RICE, INC., Appellant, v. Sharon Pratt KELLY, Sharon Morrow, & District of Columbia, Appellees.

District of Columbia Court of Appeals.

Decided March 15, 1994.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Joseph A. Reiser and William Malone, with whom John M. Wood, Mitchell F. Brecher, and Russell M. Blau, Tendler, Facer & Wunsch, were on the brief, for appellants.

Edward E. Schwab, Asst. Corp. Counsel, with whom John Payton, Corp. Counsel, and Charles L. Reischel, Deputy Corp. Counsel, were on the brief, for appellees.

Before ROGERS, Chief Judge, and FERREN and FARRELL, Associate Judges.


PER CURIAM:

These seven consolidated appeals represent the continuation of litigation by longdistance telephone companies challenging the D.C. Gross Receipts Tax Amendment Act of 1987 (the 1987 Act). See Barry v. American Tel. & Tel. Co., 563 A.2d 1069 (D.C.1989). Appellants here1 contend that the motions judge erred as a matter of law in granting summary judgment to the District of Columbia...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases