Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
Verizon Maryland, Inc. v. Global Naps, Inc.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Decided August 2, 2004No. 03-1448NO03-1449Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partNiemeyer, Circuit Judge
We are considering in this appeal only Verizon’s claim that a federal court should review the Maryland Public Service Commission’s order construing, under principles of Maryland contract law, the specific terms of a privately negotiated interconnection agreement between Verizon and MCI.1 The district court ruled that this was a State law claim for which it did not *370have federal jurisdiction and dismissed the claim.
Expanding substantially the scope of federal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the majority reverses the district court and holds for the first time that because the negotiated…
2Cases cited26 opinions
- Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. DoyleSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
- Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust for Southern Cal.Supreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Thompson Ex Rel. ThompsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Verizon Maryland Inc. v. Public Service Commission of MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 2002
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.