SOUTH DADE TELEPHONE ANSWERING & DICTATING SERVICE, INC.
v.
SOUTHERN BELL TEL. & TEL. CO.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A corporation cannot use Florida's fictitious name statute to compel a telephone company to publish fictitious business names in the yellow pages, as corporations are expressly excepted from that statute's protections.
Corporations are expressly excepted from section 865.09, F.S., and therefore lack standing to use that statute to enforce rights regarding publication of fictitious names in a telephone directory.
[1] Corporations are expressly excepted from the protections of section 865.09, F.S., and therefore cannot use that statute to compel publication of fictitious business names…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSouth Dade Telephone Answering & Dictating Service, Inc., a corporation, sought a mandatory injunction requiring Southern Bell to publish three fictit…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Mandatory Injunction cases and more on FLexlaw
This cause came on for hearing upon plaintiff’s complaint praying for a mandatory injunction requiring the defendant telephone company to accept for publication in the yellow pages appendix to its forthcoming (September 1965) Greater Miami telephone directory certain fictitious names which the corporate plaintiff has registered, purportedly pursuant to the provisions of section 865.09, F. S.
Upon consideration it is the court’s ruling that because corporations are expressly excepted under the provisions of section 865.09, F. S., the corporate plaintiff has no standing to utilize said section as a vehicle for the enforcement of any rights purportedly stemming therefrom.
*176Accordingly, it is ordered, adjudged and decreed that the complaint be and it is hereby dismissed with prejudice as to the prayers relating to publication of listings under the names “Aaba Telephone Answering Service”, “Courtesy Telephone Answering Service” and “As Low as $4 Per Month — Free Trial”; but without prejudice to the right of the plaintiff to be listed in said yellow pages appendix, in accordance with the defendant’s administrative practices and managerial policies in the same manner that plaintiff, as a telephone subscriber, is listed in the white pages directory.