MCI TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION, Petitioner,
v.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION and United States of America, Respondents,
Southern Pacific Communications Company, American Telephone and Telegraph Company, Telecommunications Association, Independent Data Communications Manufacturers Association, Inc., American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., et al., Ad Hoc Telecommunications Users Committee, Aeronautical Radio, Inc., et al., Satellite Business Systems, United States Transmission Systems, Inc., Intervenors.
The AD HOC TELECOMMUNICATIONS USERS COMMITTEE, Petitioner
v.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION and United States of America, Respondents,
Southern Pacific Communications Company, United States Transmission Systems, Inc., Independent Data Communications Manufacturers Association, Inc., American Telephone and Telegraph Company, American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., et al., MCI Telecommunications Corporation, Intervenors.
AERONAUTICAL RADIO, INC. and The Air Transport Association of America, Petitioners
v.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION and United States of America, Respondents,
Independent Data Communications Manufacturers Association, Inc., American Telephone and Telegraph Company, United States Transmission Systems, Inc., American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., et al., Ad Hoc Telecommunications Users Committee, Southern Pacific Communications Company, MCI Telecommunications Corporation, Intervenors.
AMERICAN BROADCASTING COMPANIES, INC., et al., Petitioners,
v.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION and United States of America, Respondents,
American Telephone and Telegraph Company, Intervenor.
United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
Argued February 26, 1982.
Decided April 13, 1982.
Attorney(s) appearing for the Case
John L. Bartlett, with whom Howard D. Polsky, James E. Landry and John C. Smith, Washington, D. C., were on the brief for Aeronautical Radio, Inc., et al., and Joseph M. Kittner, Edward P. Taptich, Norman P. Leventhal and Randolph J. May for ABC, et al., Joseph DeFranco for CBS, Inc. and Howard Monderer, Washington, D. C., for NBC, Inc., petitioners/intervenors in Nos. 81-1052, 81-1272, 81-1273 and 81-1554.
William J. Byrnes, with whom Michael H. Bader, Kenneth A. Cox, John M. Pelkey, Joel Rothstein Wolfson, Washington, D. C., Philip S. Nyborg, Arlington, Va., and Ruth S. Baker-Battist, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for MCI Telecommunications Corp., petitioner in No. 81-1052 and intervenor in Nos. 81-1272 and 81-1273.
John E. Ingle, Counsel, F. C. C., with whom Stephen A. Sharp, Gen. Counsel, Daniel M. Armstrong, Associate Gen. Counsel, and Carl D. Lawson, Counsel, F. C. C., Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for respondents. Jane E. Mago, Counsel, F. C. C., Robert B. Nicholson, Nancy C. Garrison, and James H. Laskey, Attys., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., also entered appearances for respondents.
Jules M. Perlberg, Chicago, Ill., with whom David J. Lewis, Washington, D. C., Alfred A. Green, New York City and Saul Fisher, Bedminster, N. J., were on the brief, for American Telephone and Telegraph Co., intervenor in Nos. 81-1052, 81-1272, 81-1273 and 81-1554.
Daniel A. Huber, Washington, D. C., entered an appearance for Southern Pacific Communications Co., intervenor in Nos. 81-1052, 81-1272 and 81-1273.
Herbert E. Marks and Laurel R. Bergold, Washington, D. C., entered appearances for Independent Data Communications Manufacturers Ass'n, Inc., intervenor in Nos. 81-1052, 81-1272 and 81-1273.
F. Thomas Tuttle, Harold David Cohen and Jack N. Goodman, Washington, D. C., entered appearances for Satellite Business Systems, intervenor in No. 81-1052.
Randall B. Lowe, Washington, D. C., entered an appearance for United States Transmission Systems, Inc., intervenor in Nos. 81-1052, 81-1272 and 81-1273.
Before TAMM and WILKEY, Circuit Judges, and GERHARD A. GESELL, District Judge.
United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge WILKEY.
WILKEY, Circuit Judge:
Petitioners challenge a Federal Communications Commission (FCC) decision prescribing an interim cost allocation methodology for use in setting rates for interstate services provided by American Telephone and Telegraph Company (AT&T). They charge that the FCC failed to explain its reversal of a previous cost allocation decision and violated the "arbitrary and capricious" provision...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting Sign on now to see your case. Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
Updated daily.
Uncompromising quality.
Complete, Accurate, Current.
Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full
text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.
Cited Cases
No Cases Found
Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the
full text of the citing case.
