Legal Opinion
Comcast Cable of Plano, Inc. v. City of Plano
Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas)
Decided June 24, 2010No. 05-09-00754-CVPublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
Opinion By
Justice FITZGERALD.
The City of Plano sued Comcast Cable of Plano, Inc. for franchise fees allegedly due under a franchise agreement. Com-cast moved for summary judgment based on federal preemption. The trial court denied Comcast’s motion, and it subsequently granted the parties’ joint motion to permit an interlocutory appeal of its summary-judgment ruling. The parties have agreed to a single issue on appeal:
Does the Federal Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. §§ 542(b) and 556(c), preempt the City’s claim that its July 11, 1983 Franchise Agreement with Comcast entitled the City to…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Landgraf v. USI Film ProductsSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
- Medtronic, Inc. v. LohrSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
- Morales v. Trans World Airlines, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1992
- National Cable & Telecommunications Assn. v. Brand X Internet ServicesSupreme Court of the United States · 2005
- City of Rockwall v. HughesTexas Supreme Court · 2008
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Gulley v. State Farm Lloyds, Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio)2011
- Grocers Supply, Inc. and Jose Narciso Sanchez v. Jose Luis Cabello, Angel Cabello, and Ramiro Cabello, Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas)2012
- City of Eugene v. Comcast of Oregon II, Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 2016
- City of Eugene v. Comcast of Oregon II, Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 2016
- Dora Gulley (Appellant/Cross Appellee) v. State Farm Lloyds (Appellee/Cross Appellant), Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio)2011
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.