Legal Opinion
At & T WIRELESS PCS, INC. v. Town of Porter
District Court, N.D. Indiana
Decided March 21, 2002No. 2:99 CV 463PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
MOODY, District Judge.
Plaintiff AT & T Wireless PCS,' Inc. (“AT & T”) brings this action pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(v), a provision of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (the “TCA” or simply the “Act”), seeking in-junctive relief requiring defendant the Town of- Porter, Indiana, (“Porter”), to grant a zoning variance allowing AT & T to construct a telecommunications facility (a 190' tall monopole tower) at a site in Porter. Subsection 332(7) of the TCA, entitled “[preservation of local zoning authority,” among other requirements mandates that state and local regulation of the…
2Cases cited34 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Patsy v. Board of Regents of Fla.Supreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Donna Hendricks-Robinson, Penny Moore, Teresa Westlake v. Excel CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1998
- Cellular Telephone Company, Doing Business as at & T Wireless Services v. The Town of Oyster Bay and the Town Board of the Town of Oyster BayCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1999
- Town of Amherst v. Omnipoint Communications Enterprises, Inc.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1999
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Sprint Spectrum L.P. v. City of CarmelCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2004
- MetroPCS, Inc. v. City and County of San FranciscoDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2003
- Lucas v. GC Servs. L.P.District Court, N.D. Indiana · 2004
- Helcher v. Dearborn CountyDistrict Court, S.D. Indiana · 2007
- Sprint Spectrum L.P. v. The City Of Carmel, IndianaCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2004
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.