Legal Opinion
APCC Services, Inc. v. AT & T CORP.
District Court, District of Columbia
Decided March 28, 2003No. CIV.A. 99-0696 ESHPublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION
HUVELLE, District Judge.
Plaintiffs have brought suit under section 206 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. § 206, which requires Interexchange Carriers (“IXCs”) such as defendant AT & T to pay “dial-around” compensation to payphone service providers (“PSPs”) for certain long distance calls originating from their payphones. Plaintiffs seek payment of dial-around compensation that they allege defendant owes the PSPs they represent. Defendant filed this motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction challenging plaintiffs’ standing to bring suit.…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Lujan v. Defenders of WildlifeSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Warth v. SeldinSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Allen v. WrightSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
- Phillips Petroleum Co. v. ShuttsSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Sprint Communications Co. v. APCC Services, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2008
- APCC Services, Inc. v. Sprint Communications Co., LPDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2003
- APCC Services, Inc. v. AT & T CORP.District Court, District of Columbia · 2003
- APCC Services, Inc. v. AT & T CORP.District Court, District of Columbia · 2003
- APCC Services, Inc. v. Sprint Communications Co.Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2005
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.