MATHIAS ET AL.
v.
WORLDCOM TECHNOLOGIES, INC., 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 dismissed a writ of certiorari that petitioners sought to challenge state commission findings regarding a telecommunications interconnection agreement, holding that petitioners, as the prevailing parties below, lacked standing to appeal from a favorable judgment merely to contest non-binding findings they deemed erroneous. The Court indicated it would address the underlying legal questions regarding federal court review of state commission actions under the Telecommunications Act of 1996 in a related case with identical issues arising from the same factual circumstances.
[1] A party may not appeal from a favorable judgment solely to obtain review of findings it deems erroneous.
[2] The Supreme Court may dismiss a writ of certiorari as improvidently granted after briefing and oral argument.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Per Curiam.
We granted certiorari to consider three questions: (1) whether a state commission’s action reláting to the enforcement of an interconnection agreement is reviewable in federal court under 47 U. S. C. § 252(e)(6) (1994 ed., Supp. IV); (2) whether a state commission waives its Eleventh Amendment immunity by voluntarily participating in the regulatory scheme established by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56; and (3) whether the doctrine of Ex parte Young, 209 U. S. 123 (1908), permits suit for prospective relief against state public utility commissioners in their official capacities for. alleged ongoing violations of that Act. 532 U. S. 903 (2001). After full briefing and oral argument, it is now clear that petitioners were the prevailing parties below, and seek review of uncongenial findings not essential to the judgment and not binding upon them in future litigation. As a general rule, a party may not appeal from a favorable judgment simply to obtain review of findings it deems erroneous. See New York Telephone Co. v. Maltbie, 291 U. S. 645 (1934) (per curiam).
We have since granted certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit to review the same questions, arising in the same factual context. Verizon Md. Inc. v. Public Serv. Comm’n of Md., and United States v. Public Serv. Comm’n of Md., 534 U. S. 1072 (2001). Our decision in those cases is released today. See Verizon Md. Inc. v. Public Serv. Comm’n of Md., ante, p. 635. The writ in this case is dismissed as improvidently granted.
It is so ordered.
Justice O’Connor took no part in the consideration or decision of this' case.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (U.S. 1908)
- Archerd v. Oregon, 291 U.S. 645 (U.S. 1934)
- Mathias v. WorldCom Techs., Inc., 532 U.S. 903 (U.S. 2001)
- Parker v. Ga. State Bd. of Pardons & Paroles, 534 U.S. 1072 (U.S. 2001)
- Verizon Md. Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n of Md., 534 U.S. 1072 (U.S. 2001)