Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google
Scholar
on the Web
Google Web
Search
MSN Web
Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News
Search
Google News
Archive Search
Yahoo!
News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com
Search
Google Blog
Search
Technorati Blog
Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
Howard R. Ward, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Northern Ohio Telephone Company, Defendant-appellee
United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit. - 381 F.2d 16
Aug. 11, 1967
James B. Davis, Cleveland, Ohio (McDonald, Hopkins & Hardy, H. Guy Hardy, Cleveland, Ohio, on the brief), for appellant.
Sidney D. Griffith, Columbus, Ohio (Power, Griffith, Jones & Bell, Columbus, Ohio, John R. Eastman, Eastman, Stichter, Smith & Bergman, Toledo, Ohio, on the brief), for appellee.
Before PHILLIPS, CELEBREZZE and COMBS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff-Appellant, Howard R. Ward, an operator of a radio station, sued, on December 1, 1960, the Northern Ohio Telephone Company for its alleged wrongful failure to furnish him with necessary telephone lines.1 For the purposes of this appeal, no cause of action as alleged in this suit accrued later than October 1, 1959. 47 U.S.C. Section 415 (b) provides as follows:
'All complaints against carriers for the recovery of damages not based on overchargss shall be filed with the Commission within one year from the time the cause of action accrues, and not after, subject to subsection (d) of this section.'
In dismissing the Plaintiff's suit, the District Court held that the one year statute of limitations provided for in Section 415(b) applied to civil suits filed in a Federal Court as well as to suits filed before the Commission.
After full consideration of the record, briefs, and arguments of counsel, we conclude that the District Court should be affirmed upon the opinion of District Judge Young reported at 251 F.Supp. 606 (1966).
Affirmed.
Ward v. Northern Ohio Telephone Company, 300 F.2d 816 (C.A. 6, 1962)