Logourl black
From our private database of 14,000+ case briefs...

Schnall v. AT&T Wireless Services, Inc.

Supreme Court of Washington
225 P.3d 929 (2010)


Facts

Martin Schnall, a New Jersey resident, Nathan Riensche, a Washington resident, and others (Schnall) (plaintiffs) were customers of AT&T Wireless Services, Inc. (AT&T) (defendant). Schnall filed a class action in Washington state court against AT&T. Schnall alleged that AT&T misled customers nationwide by including a monthly charge that was not included in advertised monthly rates and not clearly described in billing statements. The charge was a fee assessed against AT&T by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which AT&T lawfully passed down to customers. Schnall asserted contract claims and violations of the Washington Consumer Protection Act (CPA). Schnall sought certification of a nationwide class of all improperly billed AT&T customers. The trial court denied certification of the class, concluding that individual questions predominated over common questions. Additionally, the trial court held that the choice-of-law clause in each customer’s service contract required that the law of the state where the customer resided govern any dispute. Schnall appealed. The court of appeals reversed and certified the class. The Supreme Court of Washington granted certiorari to review.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Madsen, C.J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Dissent (Sanders, J.)

The dissent section is for members only and includes a summary of the dissenting judge or justice’s opinion.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 175,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 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.