Cellco Partnership Case Summary

Plaintiff at trial was Cellco Partnership, now Appellant. Defendant at trial, Shelby County, now Appellee.
Facts: Cellco Partnership, Appellant, originally entered a lease agreement in 1995 with Cellco Partnership (Verizon) allowing an easement to Stonebridge Water Tower. In 2000, Highway 64 learned that Verizon had installed cellular equipment on Stonebridge Water Tower and accused them of trespassing and threatened to file a suit against them. In 2001, Verizon (Cellco Partnership) filed a complaint against Shelby County and Highway 64 seeking a declaratory judgement stating the Verizon has the right to use the gravel access road or a declaratory judgement stating that Shelby County must provide Verizon with access to Stonebridge Water Tower, security from Shelby County to cover liability Verizon incurred from third parties as a result of a breach of the Verizon Lease, and an injunction …show more content…
Verizon then submitted a cross-motion that Highway 64’s claim be dismissed. Verizon filed a motion for partial summary against Shelby County seeking a ruling that Verizon had permission from Shelby County to use the road. Shelby County then filed a cross motion for summary judgement seeking an order that Verizon’s use was not trespassing and that they are entitled to use of the Gravel Access Road. The motion for summary judgement filed in the interest of of Verizon seeking a declaration ruling that it is authorized to use of the Gravel Access Road without a separate agreement with Highway 64 was granted, as well as the motions for summary judgement filed in favor of Shelby County seeking a ruling that Shelby County and it’s lessees are entitled to the easement without an agreement with Highway 64. The motion for summary judgement filed on behalf of Highway 64 pursuing a ruling that Verizon’s use of the easement was trespassing was denied, as well as the motion