Legal Opinion
Michigan Bell Telephone Co. v. Covad Communications Co.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Decided February 23, 2010No. 07-2469, 07-2473PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtBatchelder, C.J., joined by Gilman, J.,
SUTTON, J. (pp. 387-92), delivered a separate dissenting opinion.
*372OPINION
ALICE M. BATCHELDER, Chief Judge.
A state telephone-utility commission and several competitive local exchange carriers appeal a judgment in which the district court vacated the commission’s order requiring the incumbent local exchange carrier to provide certain “entrance facilities” at wholesale prices. Finding the appellants’ arguments unpersuasive, we AFFIRM.
I
Congress enacted the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. § 152 et seq., to mandate “that local service, which was previously operated as a monopoly overseen…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Auer v. RobbinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
- Christensen v. Harris CountySupreme Court of the United States · 2000
- Thomas Jefferson University v. ShalalaSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
- Gonzales v. OregonSupreme Court of the United States · 2006
- At&T Corp. v. Iowa Utilities BoardSupreme Court of the United States · 1999
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Talk America, Inc. v. Michigan Bell Telephone Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 2011
- Pacific Bell Telephone Co. v. California Public Utilities CommissionCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2010
- Center for Sierra Nevada Conservation v. United States Forest ServiceDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2011
- Isiogu v. Michigan Bell Telephone Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 2011
- Michigan Bell Telephone Co. v. Covad Communications Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2010
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.