# Satellite System, Inc. v. Birch Telecom of Oklahoma, Inc.

> Supreme Court of Oklahoma · July 2, 2002 · 73 O.B.A.J. 1979

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9797590

## Case

- **Full name:** SATELLITE SYSTEM, INC., Plaintiffs/Appellee, v. BIRCH TELECOM OF OKLAHOMA, INC., Defendant/Appellant
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Oklahoma
- **Decided:** July 2, 2002
- **Citations:** 73 O.B.A.J. 1979; 51 P.3d 585; 2002 OK 61; 2002 Okla. LEXIS 66; 2002 WL 1429588
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Opala
- **Judges:** Opala, Hargrave, Watt, Lavender, Kauger, Summers, Winchester, Boudreau
- **Cited by:** 20 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9797590

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- observing that “courts have generally upheld tariff liability limitations for ordinary negligence within a regulatory agency’s authority” but “overwhelmingly reject attempts to limit liability either by contract or by tariff for gross negligence, willful misconduct, and fraud”…
- noting that “[a] presumption favors the preservation of common-law rights” and that courts should look at whether the state legislature has expressed an intent, “either explicitly or implicitly, that the policies supporting a state rate tariff doctrine were intended to abolish…
- finding that, because the defendant was required to file its 12 tariffs with state commission, “the federal filed tariff doctrine is not controlling in this 13 appeal”

## Opinion text

OPALA, J.,
concurring in the court’s opinion.
¶ 1 The qualifiedly concurring justice invites the court, once again, to expand its inquiry beyond the issues necessary to decide. Mindful as I am of the time-honored principle that appellate courts may not extend their pronouncements beyond the strict framework of matters that must be resolved, I join the court in declining his tempting offer. Myers v. Lashley, 2002 OK 14 , 44 P.3d 553, 561 . See Patterson v. Beall, 2000 OK 92 , 19 P.3d 839, 849-50 (Opala, J., dissenting), for my warning against “hyper-global” pronouncements.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9797590. Public record. Not legal advice.