NORTH CAROLINA UTILITIES COMMISSION ET AL.
v.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ET AL.; UNITED STATES INDEPENDENT TELEPHONE ASSN. ET AL. V. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ET AL.; AMERICAN TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH CO. ET AL. V. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ET AL.; AND UNITED SYSTEM SERVICE, INC., ET AL. V. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ET AL.

U.S. | 1977-10-03
Nos. 76-1675; No. 76-1676; No. 76-1677; No. 76-1814
Mr. Justice Powell took no part in the consideration or decision of these petitions.
434 U.S. 874 Supreme Court of the United States (1977) Positive Treatment
Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

Full opinion text not available for this case.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Litton Sys., Inc. v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 700 F.2d 785 (2d Cir. 1983)
    …protective circuitry, Interstate and Foreign Message Toil Telephone Service, 58 F.C.C.2d 736 (1976) (Second Report & Order). The FCC’s order was affirmed on appeal. North Carolina Utilities Commission v. FCC, 552 F. 2d 1036 (4th Cir.), cert, denied, 434 U.S. 874, 98 S.Ct. 222, 54 L.Ed.2d 154 (1977).13 Thus, as of October 1977, after certiorari was denied by the Supreme Court, interconnection of non-AT & T equipment employing protective circuitry became a possibility. Finally, in April of 1978, the FCC issue…
  • Ne. Tel. Co. v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 651 F.2d 76 (2d Cir. 1981)
    …Report and Order, 56 F.C.C.2d 593 (1975); Second Report and Order, 58 F.C.C.2d 736, on reconsideration, 61 F.C.C.2d 396 (1976), 64 F.C.C.2d 1058, aff’d sub nom. North Carolina Utilities Commission v. F.C.C., 552 F. 2d 1036 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 874, 98 S.Ct. 222, 54 L.Ed.2d 154 (1977). Northeastern does not challenge the legality of the invalidated tariff. It contends instead that the protective couplers were intentionally overdesigned, making them unnecessarily expensive and subject to break…
  • United States v. Valencia, 645 F.2d 1158 (2d Cir. 1980)
    …Y. 498, 200 N.E. 288 (1936); it is not a rule of compulsion. Although it is unusual for one panel to acknowledge that it is overruling another, but see North Carolina Utilities Commission v. F.C.C., 552 F. 2d 1036, 1044-45 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 874, 98 S.Ct. 222, 54 L.Ed.2d 154 (1977), a panel may overturn precedent implicitly by simply ignoring it. Alternatively, the panel may mislabel bind [*1177] ing precedent as dictum. Finally, and this is the most invidious alternative, the panel may mis…

Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw