Legal Opinion
CallerID4u, Inc. v. MCI Communications Services Inc.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided January 22, 2018No. 15-35028, 15-35029PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
IKUTA, Circuit Judge:
Under the Communications Act of 1934 and Federal Communications Commission (FCC) rules, CallerID4u was required to either file' a valid tariff setting- rates for local telecommunications services or enter into a negotiated agreement regarding compensation for. services, rendered. See 47 U.S.C. § 203 ; see also Access Charge Reform, 16 FCC Red. 9923, 9934 (2001) (“Access Reform Order”); 47 C.F.R. § 61.26 , But CallerID4u had neither a tar iff nor a contract in place during a six-month period in which it provided telecommunications services to AT&T and Verizon. When…
2Cases cited28 opinions
- Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Hines v. DavidowitzSupreme Court of the United States · 1941
- Wyeth v. LevineSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
- Hangman Ridge Training Stables, Inc. v. Safeco Title InsuranceWashington Supreme Court · 1986
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Anderson v. AcreeDistrict Court, S.D. Ohio · 2002
- Alexis Hunley v. Instagram, LLCCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2023
- All Am. Tel. Co. v. AT & T Corp.District Court, S.D. Illinois · 2018
- 107oag074, Maryland Attorney General Reports2022
- Anderson v. Intel CorporationDistrict Court, D. Oregon · 2021
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.