Legal Opinion
Flynn v. Burman
District Court, D. Massachusetts
Decided November 19, 1998No. Civ.A. 97-12531-GAO, Civ.A. 98-11178-GAOPublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
O’TOOLE, District Judge.
These consolidated cases arise out of a dispute between the plaintiffs and officials of the Town of Barnstable, Massachusetts (the “Town”), over a telecommunications tower located within the Town. In the first action (CV 97-12531-GAO), the plaintiffs Paul P. Flynn and Sandra M. Flynn (the “Flynns”) claim that the Town, acting through its Zoning Board of Appeals (“ZBA”), violated certain provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 pertaining to local zoning regulations of “personal wireless service facilities.” 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(A). They…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Mertens v. Hewitt AssociatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
- Ross-Simons of Warwick, Inc. v. Baccarat, Inc.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1996
- Ralph S. Weaver, Etc. v. Charles Henderson, Etc.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1993
- Cleary v. Cardullo's, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1964
- Philip Morris, Incorporated v. Scott Harshbarger, Attorney General of Massachusetts, United States Tobacco Company v. L. Scott Harshbarger, Attorney General of MassachusettsCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1998
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Omnipoint Communications, Inc. v. City of ScrantonDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 1999
- Leisure Time Cruise Corp. v. Town of BarnstableDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 1999
- American Tower, L.P. v. City of GrantCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2000
- American Tower, L.P. v. City of GrantCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2000