PEOPLE OF STATE OF CAL. v. F.C.C.

Nos. 92-70083, 92-70186, 92-70217 and 92-70261.

39 F.3d 919 (1994)

The PEOPLE OF the STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., Petitioners, Public Service Commission of the District of Columbia, et al., Petitioners-Intervenors, v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, et al., Respondents, BellSouth Corporation, et al., Respondents-Intervenors. MCI TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION, Petitioner, Maryland People's Counsel, et al., Petitioners-Intervenors, v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, et al., Respondents, Voice-Tel Enterprises, Inc., et al., Respondents-Intervenors. STATE OF NEW YORK, et al., Petitioners, Maryland People's Counsel, et al., Petitioners-Intervenors, v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, et al., Respondents, Voice-Tel Enterprises, Inc., et al., Respondents-Intervenors. AMERICAN NEWSPAPER PUBLISHERS ASSOCIATION ("ANPA"), et al., Petitioners, BellSouth Corporation, et al., Intervenors, v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, et al., Respondents.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Decided October 18, 1994.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Richard E. Wiley, Michael Yourshaw and William B. Baker, Wiley, Rein & Fielding, John F. Sturm, Washington, DC, for petitioners Newspaper Ass'n of America.

Frank W. Krogh, and Donald J. Elardo, Washington, DC, for petitioners MCI Telecommunications Corp.

Ellen S. LeVine, Peter Arth, Jr. and Edward W. O'Neill, San Francisco, CA, for petitioners People of State of Cal. and Public Utilities Com'n of State of Cal.

William J. Cowan, Albany, NY, Gen. Counsel to petitioner Public Service Com'n of State of N.Y.

Renee Licht, Daniel M. Armstrong, John E. Ingle, Laurence N. Bourne and James M. Carr, Washington, DC, for respondent F.C.C.

Anne K. Bingaman, Asst. Atty. Gen., Catherine G. O'Sullivan and Nancy C. Garrison, U.S. Dept. of Justice, for respondent U.S.

JoAnne G. Bloom, Hoffman Estates, IL, for Ill., Ind., Mich., Ohio, and Wis. Bell Telephone Companies.

Robert J. Butler and Angela Burnett, Washington, DC, for Information Industry Ass'n.

Joseph P. Markoski, Squire, Sanders & Dempsey, Washington, DC, for Information Technology Ass'n of America.

Martin T. McCue, Alfred W. Whittaker, Kirkland & Ellis, Washington, DC, for U.S. Telephone Assoc.

Mary McDermott and Shelley E. Harms, White Plains, NY, for New York and New England Telephone Companies.

Robert B. McKenna, Denver, CO, and Washington, DC, for U.S. West Communications, Inc.

M. Robert Sutherland, Atlanta, GA, for BellSouth Corp. and BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc.

John Thorne, Washington, DC, for Bell Atlantic Telephone Company.

James P. Tuthill, San Francisco, CA, James L. Wurtz, Washington, DC, for Pacific Bell and Nevada Bell.

Alfred W. Whittaker, Kirkland & Ellis, Washington, DC, for Bell Operating Companies.

Robert M. Lynch, Richard C. Hartgrove, Michael J. Zpevak, St. Louis, MO, for Southwestern Bell Telephone Co.

J. Roger Wollenberg, William T. Lake and Jonathan Jacob Nadler, Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering, Washington, DC, and Sheila J. McCartney, Stamford, CT, for Intern. Business Mach. Corp.

David W. Carpenter, Peter D. Keisler, Sidley & Austin, Chicago, IL, and Francine J. Berry, John J. Langhauser, Basking Ridge, NJ, for American Tel. & Tel. Co.

Robert L. Duston, Schmeltzer, Aptaker & Shepard, PC, Washington, DC, and John Glynn, Baltimore, MD, for Maryland People's Counsel.

Philip McClelland, Harrisburg, PA, for Pa. Office of Consumer Advocate.

Randolph J. May, Sutherland, Asbill & Brennan, Washington, DC, for Compuserve, Inc.

Paul Rodgers, Washington, DC, for Nat. Ass'n of Regulatory Utility Com'rs.

Veronica A. Smith, Harrisburg, PA, Pa. Public Utility Com'n.

Robert D. Vandiver, Tallahassee, FL, for Fla. Public Service Com'n.

Before: SCHROEDER, NELSON, and CANBY, Jr., Circuit Judges.


SCHROEDER, Circuit Judge:

I. INTRODUCTION

We review the order that the Federal Communications Commission entered as a result of our decision in California v. FCC, 905 F.2d 1217 (9th Cir.1990) (California I). In that case, we remanded for reconsideration certain FCC orders, known as Computer III,1 that specified the conditions under which the Regional Bell Operating Companies...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

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.

Citing Cases