BALL v. GTE MOBILNET OF CALIFORNIA

No. C031783.

96 Cal.Rptr.2d 801 (2000)

81 Cal.App.4th 529

Susanne BALL et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. GTE MOBILNET OF CALIFORNIA et al., Defendants and Respondents.

Court of Appeals of California, Third District.

As Modified on Denial of Rehearing July 6, 2000.

Review Denied September 27, 2000.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Law Office of Franklin & Franklin, J. David Franklin, La Jolla, Law Office of Anthony A. Ferrigno, Anthony A. Ferrigno, San Clemente, Law Office of Whitmer & Law, James Whitmer, for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Law Office of Farella, Braun & Martel, Douglas R. Young, Robert C. Holtzapple, San Francisco, Grace K. Won, Los Angeles, Law Office of Alston & Bird, Peter Kontio, Atlanta, GA, Michael P. Kenny, Sacramento, for Defendants and Respondents GTE Mobilnet of California et al.

Law Office of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, Joel Steven Sanders, Steven S. Kimball, San Francisco, and Mark A. Perry, for Defendant and Respondent Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co.

Law Office of Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro, Mary B. Cranston, Kevin M. Fong, San Francisco, D. Kirk Jamieson, John S. Poulos, Sacramento, for Defendants and Respondents AirTouch Cellular et al.

Law Office of Watson, Khachadourian, Re & Kraft, Kevin R. Iams, Law Office of Stokes Lawrence, P.S., Laura J. Buckland, Heather C. Francks, Seattle, WA, for Defendants and Respondents AT & T Wireless Services, Inc. et al.

Law Office of Gray, Cary, Ware & Freidenrich, William N. Kammer, Daniel T. Pascucci, Mary A. Lehman, San Diego, for Defendants and Respondents Cox Communications et al.

Pacific Telesis Group Legal Department, Bart Kimball, for Respondent and Defendant Pacific Bell Mobile Services.

Law Office of Stevens & O'Connell, Charles J. Stevens, Stephen J. Burns, Sacramento, Bradley A. Benbrook for Defendant and Respondent Bakersfield Cellular Telephone Company.

Law Office of Keker & Van Nest, Steven A. Hirsch and Loretta Lynch, San Francisco, for Defendant and Respondent Bay Area Cellular Telephone Co. et al.


DAVIS, J.

Recognizing the rapid growth of the cellular phone industry and related wireless communication methods (termed "commercial mobile radio services (CMRS)", or "commercial mobile services"), the United States Congress in 1993 amended the Communications Act of 1934. (47 U.S.C. §§ 151 et seq. as amended by the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, Pub.L. No. 103-66, § 6002 (Aug. 10, 1993) 107 Stat. 312, 387-97; see In re Comcast Cellular...

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