Metropolitan Cablevision, Inc. v. Cox Cable Cleveland Area
Ohio Court of Appeals
604 N.E.2d 765 (1992)
- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
Cox Cable Television Company (defendant) and Metropolitan Cablevision, Inc. (MetroTen) (plaintiff) were competing cable companies. Upon entering into a subscribership agreement with a customer, Cox would install wiring on and in the subscriber’s home. Specifically, Cox stapled, screwed, or otherwise attached wiring to a subscriber’s floorboards, inside and outside walls, and basement joists. Cox drilled holes through subscribers’ walls where necessary. Cox was not required to remove its wiring from a subscriber’s home after the subscriber ended its subscription. In fact, it was common for Cox to leave its wiring in a home after a subscriber terminated service, due to the frequency of customers re-subscribing and new customers moving in to pre-wired homes. Cox stated that it cost more to remove the wiring than the wiring was worth. If a subscriber moved from Cox to MetroTen, MetroTen would reuse Cox’s internal wiring that it had left. Dawn Mueller (plaintiff) was a Cox subscriber and cancelled her subscription. Cox sought to remove its wiring from Mueller’s home, but Mueller refused to permit Cox to remove the wiring. MetroTen filed suit seeking a declaratory judgment that Cox’s internal wiring was a fixture. The trial court ruled in MetroTen’s favor. Cox appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Matia, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 804,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
