Opinion ID: 1977691
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: We are primarily confronted with a unique request by Cascade for dismissal of this appeal.

Text: In support thereof Cascade argues Bell and Commission are estopped from taking issue with trial court's Conclusion of Law No. 14, heretofore quoted. This stand is premised upon the aforesaid contention that Bell and Commission had previously conceded Cascade's right to refuse Bell access to and floor space in Cascade's plant. Bell maintains, however, there is a significant distinction between (1) a unilateral attempt by it to force entry into Cascade's quarters and (2) a Commission order that Cascade accord Bell permission to effect necessary toll connections within Cascade's exchange. The argument advanced by Cascade does not constitute good cause for dismissal hereof. Neither Bell nor Commission ever did more than concede the former had no intrinsic right to per se force entry into and install additional long distance connections in Cascade's central exchange. Therefore Bell's position is well taken. See generally 31 C.J.S., Estoppel, § 117a. Further discussion will serve no useful purpose. Cascade's request for dismissal of Bell's appeal is denied.