Court Decisions
Court Decision in Byrd v. Goord (S.D.N.Y)8-26-2005
Court Decision in Walton, et al. v. NYDOC & MCI -
10-08-2004
Bullard v. State of New York (NY Ct of Claims) challenge to inmate phone rates dismissed - 05-01-02
New Hampshire Supreme Court Rejects Challenge to Filed Prison Telephone Rates - 03-31-2003
- "The plaintiffs’’ anti-trust claim alleges that the defendants entered into agreements with the State for prisoner telephone service, which have produced "adverse anti-competitive effects within the market for prisoner-initiated collect telephone calls" and have "unreasonably restrained trade and established a monopoly power over commerce involving the market for prisoner-initiated collect telephone calls." As a result of this conduct, the plaintiffs allege that they have "paid unjustified, exorbitant and unreasonable charges for telephone calls received from prisoners and have been prevented from choosing other options of telephone service" for receiving prisoner calls.
“Absent from the plaintiffs’’ complaint, however, is an allegation that the rates charged the plaintiffs were not the rates stated in the applicable tariff. "[A]ny subscriber who pays the filed rate has suffered no legally cognizable injury because the rate is per se reasonable." Weinberg v. Sprint Corp., 801 A.2d 281, 289 (N.J. 2002) (quotation omitted); see Wegoland Ltd. v. NYNEX Corp., 27 F.3d 17, 18 (2d Cir. 1994) ("any filed rate –– that is, one approved by the governing regulatory agency –– is . . . unassailable in judicial proceedings brought by ratepayers"). Accordingly, the plaintiffs have failed to allege a legally cognizable injury. See Weinberg, 801 A.2d at 289."
|
