Legal Opinion

Cincinnati Bell Telephone Co. v. Public Utilities Commission

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided July 5, 2001No. 00-507PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtPfeifer, J.

In 1996, the United States Congress sought to provide for local market competition in the telecommunications industry with the passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (the “1996 Act”). The 1996 Act allows for new competitive local exchange carriers (“CLECs”) to enter local telephone markets by several mechanisms. One mechanism involves the CLEC’s access to parts of the network of an incumbent local exchange carrier (“ILEC”) as unbundled network elements (“UNEs”) and provision of local telephone services over those elements. By using this entry method, the CLEC can use its own facilities…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Iowa Utilities Board v. Federal Communications Commission and United States of AmericaCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2000
  2. Dayton Power & Light Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1983
  3. At&T Communications of Ohio, Inc. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1990
  4. Ohio Edison Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1992
  5. Cincinnati Gas & Electric Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1999

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Constellation NewEnergy, Inc. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 2004
  2. Monongahela Power Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 2004
  3. AK Steel Corp. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 2002
  4. Payphone Ass'n v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 2006
  5. Westside Cellular, Inc. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 2002

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API