Legal Opinion
At & T Wireless Services of California LLC v. City of Carlsbad
District Court, S.D. California
Decided February 3, 2003No. 01 CV 2045 JM(LAB)PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION AND CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION; DENYING DEFENDANTS’ CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
MILLER, District Judge.
I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff AT & T Wireless (“ATT”) (successor in interest to GTE) has filed suit under, inter alia, section 704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (“TCA”) (47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)) alleging that the City of Carlsbad, as well other city employees acting in their official capacities, (cumulatively the “city”) unlawfully denied ATT’s application for Conditional Use Permit (“CUP”) No. 00-36. ATT…
2Cases cited25 opinions
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1993
- Universal Camera Corp. v. National Labor Relations BoardSupreme Court of the United States · 1951
- Kumho Tire Co. v. CarmichaelSupreme Court of the United States · 1999
- City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1985
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- T-Mobile Central, LLC v. Unified Government Wyandotte County KsCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2008
- T-Mobile Central v. UNIFIED GOV'T OF WYANDOTTEDistrict Court, D. Kansas · 2007
- T-Mobile Northeast LLC v. Loudoun County Board of SupervisorsDistrict Court, E.D. Virginia · 2012
- Intermax Towers, LLC v. Ada County, IdahoDistrict Court, D. Idaho · 2025
- Intermax Towers, LLC v. Ada County, IdahoDistrict Court, D. Idaho · 2024
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.