47 U.S.C. § 217
Agents’ acts and omissions; liability of carrier
In construing and enforcing the provisions of this chapter, the act, omission, or failure of any officer, agent, or other person acting for or employed by any common carrier or user, acting within the scope of his employment, shall in every case be also deemed to be the act, omission, or failure of such carrier or user as well as that of the person.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 22
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1978–2023 · leading case: Hammann v. 1-800 Ideas. Com, Inc., 455 F. Supp. 2d 942 (D. Minnesota 2006).
Hammann v. 1-800 Ideas. Com, Inc., 455 F. Supp. 2d 942 (D. Minnesota 2006). “ammann but Goal Assist Corporation, the corporation over which Hammann presides as sole shareholder, (b) Hammann has committed fraud on the Court by representing that he is a pro se litigant when he is not; (2) the claims against the individual’ defendants must be dismissed…”
Charvat v. EchoStar Satellite, LLC, 630 F.3d 459 (6th Cir. 2010). “Then there is the intricacy of 47 U.S.C. § 217 , which appears to codify a form of vicarious liability applicable only to “common carrier[s] or user[s].”
Uesco Indus., Inc. v. Poolman of Wisconsin, Inc., 2013 IL App (1st) 112566 (Ill. App. Ct. 2013). “) 47 U.S.C. § 217 (2006). See also Hammann v.”
LSSI Data Corp. v. Comcast Phone, LLC, 696 F.3d 1114 (11th Cir. 2012). “See 47 U.S.C. § 217 ; cf. McLeodUSA Publ’g Co, 17 FCC Red.”
United States v. Corbin Farm Serv., 444 F. Supp. 510 (E.D. Cal. 1978). “§§ 63 , 461, 1041(a); 47 U.S.C. § 217 . Accordingly, this court must determine the meaning of the words “acting for” in section 1367 (b)(4) without the assistance of legislative history, administrative interpretation or prior case law.”
Charvat v. Echostar Satellite, LLC, 676 F. Supp. 2d 668 (S.D. Ohio 2009). “First, he relies on 47 U.S.C. § 217 , which reads as follows: In construing and enforcing the provisions of this chapter, the act, omission, or failure of any officer, agent, or other person acting for or employed by any common carrier or user, acting within the scope of his…”
Kleiman & Hochberg, Inc. v. United States Dep't of Agric., 497 F.3d 681 (D.C. Cir. 2007). “§ 1041(d) (egg products inspection); 47 U.S.C. § 217 (regulation of common carriers in wire or radio communication).”
Reynolds Corp. v. Nat'l Operator Servs., Inc., 73 F. Supp. 2d 299 (W.D.N.Y. 1999). “Plaintiff alleges that venue is proper under this section because plaintiffs unjust enrichment and “respondeat superior” claims rely on the respondeat superior provisions of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. § 217 . This section provides: In construing and enforcing the…”
CE Design, Ltd. v. C & T Pizza, Inc., 2020 IL App (1st) 181795 (Ill. App. Ct. 2020). “” 47 U.S.C. § 217 (2006) (emphasis added); Uesco Indus.”
Rowan v. Pierce (D.P.R. 2023). “47 U.S.C. § 217 (emphasis added). Vicarious liability under the TCPA may extend beyond agents in certain circumstances.”
FDS Restaurant v. All Plumbing Inc. (D.C. 2020). “47 U.S.C. § 217 (2006 & 2018) (emphasis added).”
Spurlark v. Dimension Serv. Corp. (S.D. Ohio 2022). “” 47 U.S.C. § 217 (emphasis added). Other courts have found the “any person” language in § 227 of the TCPA applies to individuals, including corporate officers.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.