Cases

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT FILED: MAY 1, 2017 No. 15-1063 UNITED STATES TELECOM ASSOCIATION, PETITIONER v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION AND UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, RESPONDENTS INDEPENDENT TELEPHONE & TELECOMMUNICATIONS ALLIANCE, ET AL., INTERVENORS Consol

FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit May 23, 2014 PUBLISH Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court

921 A.2d 1169 (2005) 392 N.J. Super. 593 HILLS OF TROY NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, INC., Plaintiff v. TOWNSHIP OF PARSIPPANY-TROY HILLS, Omnipoint Communications, Inc. and Sprint Spectrum, L.P., Defendants. Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Morris County. October 28, 2005. *1170 Ira E. Weiner, for plaintiff (Azrak

668 F.Supp.2d 831 (2009) IBERIA CREDIT BUREAU, INC., et al. v. CINGULAR WIRELESS, et al. Civil Action No. 6:01-2148. United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Lafayette-Opelousas Division. November 2, 2009. *833 Theodore Michael Haik, Jr., Haik Minivielle & Grubbs, New Iberia, LA, David Patrick Daniel, Jr., Law Offices of

168 F.3d 1332 335 U.S.App.D.C. 32 CELLULAR TELECOMMUNICATIONS INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION, et al., Petitioners,v.FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION and United States ofAmerica, Respondents.Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, et al., Intervenors. Nos. 97-1690, 97-1703 and 97-1705. United States Court of Appeals,District of Columbia Circuit.

962 P.2d 104 (1998) 136 Wash.2d 322 Coryelle TENORE, Charles F. Peterson and Karen M. Cole, on behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, Appellants, v. AT & T WIRELESS SERVICES and McCaw Cellular Communications, Inc. d/b/a Cellular One, Respondents. No. 65609-6. Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc. Argued May 19, 1998.

Case: 22-20454 Document: 00516847427 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/04/2023 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit ____________ FILED

MEMORANDUM OPINION D. MICHAEL LYNN, Bankruptcy Judge. Before the court is Debtors’ Emergency Motion (I) To Enforce Automatic Stay Against the Federal Communications Commission or, In the Alternative, (II) For Injunctive Relief Barring the Actual Cancellation of the Debtors’ Spectrum Licenses Until Such Time As a Final, Non-Appealable Order Has Been Entered In Respect of Cancellatio

USCA4 Appeal: 25-1412 Doc: 44 Filed: 03/19/2026 Pg: 1 of 13 PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 25-1412 BLOOSURF, LLC, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. T-MOBILE USA, INCORPORATED; TDI ACQUISITION SUB, LLC,

Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge RANDOLPH. RANDOLPH, Circuit Judge: Federal law bars states from regulating the entry of, and the rates charged by, providers of mobile telecommunications services. Texas law requires all providers of telecommunications services in the state to contribute to two state-administered funds. In these consolidated ■ petitions for judicial review of an order of the

JOHN M. WALKER, Circuit Judge: Petitioners Cellular Phone Taskforce (“CPT”) and Ad-Hoc Association of Parties Concerned About the Federal Communications Commission Radio Frequency Health and Safety Rules (“AHA”), joined by numerous other individuals and groups, appeal from two final opinions and orders in which the Federal Communications Commission (the “FCC”) promulgated guidelines for health and safety standards of radio fre

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under V.R.A.P. 40 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions by email at: JUD.Reporter@vermont.gov or by mail at: Vermont Supreme Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801, of any errors in order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes to press. 2020 VT 83

OPINION & ORDER KENNETH M. KARAS, District Judge. Plaintiffs, Orange County-Poughkeepsie Limited Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless (“Verizon”) and Homeland Towers, LLC (“Homeland”), bring this Action against Defendants, the Town of East Fishkill (“East Fishkill”) and the Town of East Fishkill Zoning Board of Appeals (the “Board”) (collectively, the “Town”), under Section 704 of the Telecom

NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557- 1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us SJC-13797 COURTNEY GILARDI & others1 vs. BOARD OF HEALTH OF PITTSFIELD. Berkshire.

205 F.3d 82 (2nd Cir. 2000) CELLULAR PHONE TASKFORCE, et al., Petitioners,CELLULAR TELECOMMUNICATIONS INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCASTERS, ASSOCIATION FOR MAXIMUM SERVICE TELEVISION, INC., ELECTROMAGNETIC ENERGY ASSOCIATION, and AT&T WIRELESS SERVICES, INC., Intervenors,v.FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondents. Docket Nos. 97-4328(L); 98-4003(Con);

JON O. NEWMAN, Chief Judge: This petition to review an order of the Federal Communications Commission challenges the lawfulness of the Commission’s denial of Connecticut’s request to continue state regulation of wholesale rates for cellular telephone service. Petitioners, the Connecticut Department of Public Utility Control (“DPUC”) and the Attorney General of Connecticut, contend that the Federal Communications Commission (“F

JACOBS, Circuit Judge: The Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) petitions this Court for a writ of mandamus to the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (Hardin, B.J. ). On February 7, 2000, the bankruptcy court issued an order prohibiting the FCC from re-auctioning spectrum licenses previously held by debtor NextWave Per

Ciparick, J. (dissenting). Because I do not believe the exemption from local zoning regulation accorded to the state-owned telecommunications towers should be applied to the private telecommunications providers here, I respectfully dissent. Placement of private wireless service facilities is ordinarily subject to local zoning requirements. This case differs from th

OPINION & ORDER KATHERINE B. FORREST, District Judge. This is an appeal from the Bankruptcy Court’s (Chapman, J.) order dated March 27, 2015, confirming the debtors’1 Modified Second Amended Joint Plan Pursuant to Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code (the “Plan”).2 (Bankr. Dkt. 2276, Attached as Appendix to Brief for Debtor-Appellees (“

78 F.3d 842 CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITY CONTROL and RichardBlumenthal, Attorney General of the State ofConnecticut, Petitioners,v.FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION and United States ofAmerica, Respondents,Springwich Cellular Limited Partnership; CellcoPartnership; GTE Service Corporation; McCaw CellularCommunications, Inc.; Connecticut Telephone andCommunication Systems, Inc.; Connecticut Mobile