VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC. ET AL.
v.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ET AL.; WORLDCOM, INC., ET AL. V. VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC. ET AL.; FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ET AL. V. IOWA UTILITIES BOARD ET AL.; AT&T CORP. V. IOWA UTILITIES BOARD ET AL.; AND GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS, INC. V. IOWA UTILITIES BOARD ET AL.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Supreme Court consolidated five cases challenging the Federal Communications Commission's implementation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, granting certiorari to review whether the FCC's efficient replacement cost methodology for setting interconnection rates was proper, whether historical costs must be incorporated into those rates, and whether regulators could require incumbent carriers to combine network elements upon request. The Court's decision would determine the validity of FCC regulations governing how new telecommunications competitors must pay incumbent carriers for network access.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari granted limited to the following questions: “(1) Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that 47 U.
S. C. § 252(d)(1) (Telecommunications Act of 1996) forecloses the cost methodology adopted by the Federal Communications Commission, which is based on the efficient replacement cost of existing technology, for determining the interconnection rates that new entrants into local telecommunications markets must pay incumbent local telephone companies. (2) Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that neither the Takings Clause nor the Telecommunications Act of 1996 requires the incorporation of an incumbent local exchange carrier’s ‘historical’ costs into the rates that it may charge new entrants for access to its network elements. (3) Whether 47 U.
S. C. § 251(c)(3) prohibits regulators from requiring that incumbent local telephone companies combine certain previously uncombined network elements when a new entrant requests the combination and agrees to compensate the incumbent for performing that task.” Cases consolidated, and a total of one hour allotted for oral argument.
Justice O’Connor took no part in the consideration or decision of these petitions.
Reported below: 219 F. 3d 744.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coal., 535 U.S. 234 (U.S. 2002)…d States v. Fox, 248 F. 3d 394 (CA5 2001); United States v. Mento, 231 F. 3d 912 (CA4 2000); United States v. Acheson, 195 F. 3d 645 (CA11 1999); United States v. Hilton, 167 F. 3d 61 (CA1), cert. denied, 528 U. S. 844 (1999). We granted certiorari. 531 U. S. 1124 (2001). II The First Amendment commands, “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech.” The government may violate this mandate in many ways, e. g., Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U. S. 819 (1995); Kel…
-
Great-West Life & Annuity Ins. Co. v. Knudson, 534 U.S. 204 (U.S. 2002)…Owens, 122 F. 3d 1258 (CA9 1997), it held that judicially decreed reimbursement for payments made to a beneficiary of an insurance plan by a third party is not equitable relief and is therefore not authorized by § 502(a)(3). We granted certiorari. 531 U. S. 1124 (2001). II We have observed repeatedly that ERISA is a “ ‘comprehensive and reticulated statute,’ the product of a decade of congressional study of the Nation’s private employee benefit system.” Mertens v. Hewitt Associates, 508 U. S. 248, 251 (19…
-
Verizon Commc'ns Inc. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 535 U.S. 467 (U.S. 2002)…C forward-looking cost methodology presents no “ripe” takings claim. The FCC and the entrants, on the other side, seek review of the Eighth Circuit’s invalidation of the TELRIC methodology and the additional combination rules. We granted certiorari, 531 U. S. 1124 (2001), and now affirm on the issues raised by the incumbents, and reverse on those raised by the FCC and the entrants. Ill A The incumbent carriers’ first attack charges the FCC with ignoring the plain meaning of the word “cost” as it occurs [*4…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence