Legal Opinion
Hamilton County Emergency Communications District v. BellSouth Telecommunications, LLC
District Court, E.D. Tennessee
Decided January 5, 2016No. 1:11-CV-330 (Lead Case), 1:12-CV-003, 1:12-CV-056, 1:12-CV-131, 1:12-CV-138, 1:12-CV-139, 1:12-CV-149, 1:12-CV-166, 1:12-CV-176, 1:12-CV-186PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM
CURTIS L. COLLIER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
For many years, the Tennessee 911 emergency telephone call system has served and continues to serve a very worthwhile public purpose. That system relies upon the collection of mandatory fees from subscribers to telephone land lines. However, as communication technology has advanced, the-telecommunications industiy has become much more sophisticated, and communications technology inconceivable in the noMóo-distant past is in common .use today. A result of this tremendous advance in technology - is that more and more people rely upon…
2Cases cited70 opinions
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- M'culloch v. State of MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1819
65 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Hamilton County Emergency Communications District v. BellSouth Telecommunications LLCCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2017
- Hamilton Cnty. Emergency Commc'ns v. Level 3 Commc'nsCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2021
- Hamilton County Emergency Communications District v. BellSouth Telecommunications LLCCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2017
- Milcrofton Utility District of Williamson County, Tennessee v. City of Brentwood, TennesseeDistrict Court, M.D. Tennessee · 2020
- Roane Cty. Emer. Commc'ns v. BellSouthCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2017