Legal Opinion
United States v. Western Elec. Co., Inc.
District Court, District of Columbia
Decided March 7, 1988No. Civ. A. 82-0192PublishedCited by 17 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
HAROLD H. GREENE, District Judge.
Under the terms of the decree, 1 the Regional Companies are prohibited from providing “information services.” AT & T, 552 F.Supp. at 227. An information service is defined as “the offering of a capability for generating, acquiring, storing, transforming, processing, retrieving, utilizing or making available information which may be conveyed via telecommunications.” Id. at 229. On September 10, 1987, the Court stated that it was prepared to exempt from the information services restriction the transmission of information generated by others, and it…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Brown Shoe Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
- United States v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co.District Court, District of Columbia · 1983
- United States v. Western Elec. Co., Inc.District Court, District of Columbia · 1987
- United States v. Western Electric Co.District Court, District of Columbia · 1987
3Cited by17 opinions
- California v. Federal Communications CommissionCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1990
- Mozilla Corporation v. FCCCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2019
- United States v. Western Electric Co.Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1990
- People of the State of California Public Utilities Commission of the State of California, North American Telecommunications Association ("Nata") National Association of Regulatory Commissioners ("Naruc") Missouri Public Service Commission ("Mpsc"), Petitioners-Intervenors v. Federal Communications Commission, Pacific Bell, Respondents-Intervenors. People of the State of California Public Utilities Commission of the State of California, North American Telecommunications Association ("Nata") National Association of Regulatory Commissioners ("Naruc"), Petitioners-Intervenors v. Federal Communications Commission, Ameritech Operating Companies (Illinois Bell Telephone Co., Indiana Bell Telephone Co. Incorp., Michigan Bell Telephone Co., Ohio Bell Telephone Co., Wisconsin Bell, Inc.), Respondents-Intervenors. People of the State of California Public Utilities Commission of the State of California v. Federal Communications Commission, People of the State of New York, North American Telecommunications Association ("Nata") Pacific Bell, Nevada Bell, Pactel Communications Companies, and Pacific Telesis Group Iowa Utilities Board, Petitioners-Intervenors v. Federal Communications Commission, Bell Atlantic Telephone Companies ("Bell Atlantic"), Respondents-Intervenors. People of the State of New York, Pacific Bell, Nevada Bell, Pactel Communications Companies, and Pacific Telesis Group Iowa Utilities Board North American Telecommunications Association ("Nata"), Petitioners-Intervenors v. Federal Communications Commission, American Telephone and Telegraph, Respondents-Intervenors. State of Michigan Michigan Public Service Commission v. Federal Communications Commission United States of America, MCI Telecommunications Corporation v. Federal Communications Commission and United States of AmericaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1990
- United States v. Western Elec. Co., Inc.District Court, District of Columbia · 1991
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.