Legal Opinion · Dissent
Cavalier Telephone, LLC v. Verizon Virginia, Inc.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Decided May 20, 2003No. 02-1337Published
1DissentGreenberg, Senior Circuit Judge
As I would find that Cavalier’s complaint adequately states a claim for relief under the essential facilities doctrine, I respectfully dissent.
As a preliminary matter, I point out that I agree wholeheartedly with the majority’s analysis of the relationship between the Sherman Act and the Telecommunications Act. In particular, I support its conclusion that “the provisions of the Telecommunications Act do not limit the applicability of the antitrust laws to Verizon.” Maj. Op. at 187. Furthermore, I agree both that “the special, indeed idiosyncratic, relationship between the Telecommunications…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- MCI Communications Corporation and MCI Telecommunications Corporation v. American Telephone and Telegraph CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1983
- Franks v. RossCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2002
- Hecht v. Pro-Football, Inc.Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1977
- United States v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co.District Court, District of Columbia · 1981
- Covad Communications Co. v. BellSouth Corp.Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2002
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.