Legal Opinion
United States v. Western Elec. Co., Inc.
District Court, District of Columbia
Decided September 10, 1987No. Civ. A. 82-0192PublishedCited by 37 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
HAROLD H. GREENE, District Judge.
Following the submission of a report from the Department of Justice, in accordance with the Court’s Opinion of August 11, 1982 which approved the consent decree, 1 a number of motions were filed which collectively sought removal of all the line of business restrictions embodied in section 11(D) of the decree. 2 That section provides as follows:
After completion of the reorganization specified in section I, no B0C shall, directly or indirectly or through any affiliated enterprise:
1. Provide interexchange telecommunications services or information services;
2Cases cited51 opinions
- New York Times Co. v. SullivanSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
- Brown Shoe Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
- Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
- Parker v. BrownSupreme Court of the United States · 1943
- United States v. Swift & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1932
46 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by37 opinions
- Bellsouth Corporation v. Federal Communications Commission and United States of America, At&t Corporation, IntervenorsCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1998
- California v. Federal Communications CommissionCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1990
- United States v. Western Electric Co.Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1990
- United States v. Western Electric Company, Inc., Bell Atlantic CorporationCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1994
- People of the State of California Public Utilities Commission of the State of California, North American Telecommunications Association ("Nata") National Association of Regulatory Commissioners ("Naruc") Missouri Public Service Commission ("Mpsc"), Petitioners-Intervenors v. Federal Communications Commission, Pacific Bell, Respondents-Intervenors. People of the State of California Public Utilities Commission of the State of California, North American Telecommunications Association ("Nata") National Association of Regulatory Commissioners ("Naruc"), Petitioners-Intervenors v. Federal Communications Commission, Ameritech Operating Companies (Illinois Bell Telephone Co., Indiana Bell Telephone Co. Incorp., Michigan Bell Telephone Co., Ohio Bell Telephone Co., Wisconsin Bell, Inc.), Respondents-Intervenors. People of the State of California Public Utilities Commission of the State of California v. Federal Communications Commission, People of the State of New York, North American Telecommunications Association ("Nata") Pacific Bell, Nevada Bell, Pactel Communications Companies, and Pacific Telesis Group Iowa Utilities Board, Petitioners-Intervenors v. Federal Communications Commission, Bell Atlantic Telephone Companies ("Bell Atlantic"), Respondents-Intervenors. People of the State of New York, Pacific Bell, Nevada Bell, Pactel Communications Companies, and Pacific Telesis Group Iowa Utilities Board North American Telecommunications Association ("Nata"), Petitioners-Intervenors v. Federal Communications Commission, American Telephone and Telegraph, Respondents-Intervenors. State of Michigan Michigan Public Service Commission v. Federal Communications Commission United States of America, MCI Telecommunications Corporation v. Federal Communications Commission and United States of AmericaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1990
32 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.