Legal Opinion
Cellco Partnership v. Town Plan & Zoning Commission of Farmington
District Court, D. Connecticut
Decided April 13, 1998No. 3:97 CV 2155 (GLG)PublishedCited by 38 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
GOETTEL, District Judge.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, both parties move for summary judgment on all counts of plaintiffs second amended complaint. For the reasons discussed below, plaintiffs motion (Document # 17) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part and defendant’s motion (Document # 20-2) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff, Célico Partnership, d/b/a Bell Atlantic Mobile, Inc. (“Célico”), 1 which is a personal wireless service provider, has been authorized by the Federal Communications Commission to provide cellular telephone service to the…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- 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
- West v. AtkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
- Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1970
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by38 opinions
- Cellular Telephone Company, Doing Business as at & T Wireless Services v. The Town of Oyster Bay and the Town Board of the Town of Oyster BayCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1999
- Omnipoint Communications, Inc. v. Town of LaGrangeDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2009
- Sprint Spectrum, L.P. v. WillothCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1999
- Apt Pittsburgh Limited Partnership v. Penn Township Butler County Of PennsylvaniaCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1999
- At & T Wireless PCS, Inc. v. City Council of Virginia BeachCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1998
33 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.