Search for: "Pacific Bell Telephone Company"
Results 21 - 40
of 40
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
22 Jun 2011, 6:07 pm
If you do find a debt collector on either of the lists, or even if the collector is not on the list, you can always contact Traywick Law Offices, LLC and we can put a stop to the annoying telephone calls. [read post]
22 Jun 2011, 6:07 pm
If you do find a debt collector on either of the lists, or even if the collector is not on the list, you can always contact Traywick Law Offices, LLC and we can put a stop to the annoying telephone calls. [read post]
22 Mar 2011, 4:50 pm
" Which T-Mobile may conclude, as it reviews its options, beats going the way of Pacific Bell, Ameritech, and Bell South. [read post]
1 Dec 2010, 5:54 pm
Michigan Bell Telephone Co.Docket: 10-329Issue(s): (1) Whether the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and the Federal Communications Commission's Triennial Review Remand Order permit incumbent local telephone companies to charge competing telephone companies competitive rates for entrance facilities used for interconnection; and (2) whether the lower court provided the appropriate level of deference to the FCC's interpretation of its… [read post]
10 Sep 2010, 4:30 am
Pacific Bell Telephone Co., No. [read post]
15 Apr 2010, 2:19 pm
Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340. [read post]
23 Feb 2010, 11:34 am
” Plaintiffs Kimberly McCarther and Juan Huerta were employees of Defendants SBC Services, Inc. and Pacific Bell Telephone Company, respectively. [read post]
17 Dec 2009, 12:39 pm
In recent California employment law news, telecommunications giant AT&T and its Pacific Bell Telephone Co., and BellSouth Telecommunications Co., are being sued by over 5,000 current and former workers for withholding up to $1 billion in overtime wages--forcing managers across the country to work overtime without compensation. [read post]
28 Jul 2009, 9:30 am
Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, 1978 OK 85, 580 P.2d 151, Missouri Pacific Railroad Company v. [read post]
25 Feb 2009, 7:05 am
Roberts, Jr., wrote for the Court in Pacific Bell, et al., v. linkLine Communications (07-512). [read post]
18 Sep 2008, 8:56 pm
The first edition of “Petitions to Watch” for the October 2008 term features cases up for consideration at the Justices’ opening conference of September 29. [read post]
8 Sep 2008, 3:35 pm
Pacific Bell Telephone Co. [read post]
30 Jul 2008, 9:32 pm
Below, Kevin Russell of Howe & Russell previews next term's Pacific Bell Telephone Co. [read post]
24 Jun 2008, 6:20 pm
The AT&T unit, Pacific Bell Telephone Co., was sued by several Internet services providers in 2003, including Linkline Communications Inc., Notelog Inc. and In-Reach Internet Inc.Read the article: The Wall Street Journal [read post]
23 Jun 2008, 3:05 pm
Pacific Bell Telephone Co., dba AT&T California v. linkLine Communications - the Ninth Circuit held the Sherman Antitrust Act permits "price squeeze" claims against companies with no duty to sell to others at wholesale. [read post]
4 Jun 2008, 2:46 pm
(in support of the petition) Brief amicus curiae of United States (recommending denial of certiorari) __________________ Docket: 07-512 Case name: Pacific Bell Telephone Co., dba AT&T California v. linkLine Communications Issue: Whether Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act permits a "price squeeze" claim if the defendant has no duty to deal. [read post]
23 May 2008, 8:50 am
————- In this invitation brief filed yesterday, the Solicitor General’s office recommended the Court grant certiorari in Pacific Bell Telephone Co., dba AT&T California v. linkLine Communications (07-512). [read post]
22 Jan 2008, 7:04 am
The anitrust case (Pacific Bell Telephone, et al., v. linkLine Communications, et al., 07-512) is a test of the theory that a “prize squeeze” violates the Sherman Act. [read post]
6 Dec 2007, 3:19 pm
Pacific Bell, 2007 U.S. [read post]
5 Apr 2007, 5:35 pm
Cunningham(415) 774-3208tcunningham@sheppardmullin.com [1] The AT&T defendants are SBC Services, Inc., Pacific Bell Telephone Company and Nevada Bell Telephone Company. [read post]
