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

Nos. 96-3519, 96-4080, 96-4082 and 96-4083.

124 F.3d 934 (1997)

The PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA; The Public Utilities Commission of the State of California, Petitioners, Bell Atlantic Corporation; Bellsouth Corporation; Pacific Telesis Group; SBC Communications, Inc.; Maryland Public Service Commission; US West, Inc.; US Telephone Association; Arkansas Public Service Commission; ALLTEL Telephone Services Corporation; Ameritech Corporation; Oregon Public Utility Commission; North State Telephone Company; Western Alliance; Independent Telephone and Telecommunications Alliance; Roseville Telephone Company; Concord Telephone Company; Rock Hill Telephone Company; Public Utilities Commission of the State of Hawaii; American Public Communications Council, Inc.; ICG Telecom Group, Inc.; Minnesota Public Utilities Commission; Southern New England Telephone Company; The Ad Hoc Coalition of Telecommunications Manufacturing Companies; Pacific Telecom, Inc.; Minnesota Independent Coalition; Kentucky Public Service Commission; Kansas Corporation Commission; Public Service Commission of the State of Wyoming; Rhode Island Public Utilities Commission; Public Service Commission of Wisconsin; State of Texas; Alabama Public Service Commission; Citizens Telephone Company of Kecksburg; New Mexico State Corporation Commission; Public Service Commission of the State of Montana; GTE Service Corporation; Utah Department of Commerce, Division of Public Utilities; Public Service Commission of Utah; Public Service Commission of the State of South Carolina; Tennessee Regulatory Authority; Aging Forum, Inc., doing business as National Silver Haired Congress; U.S. Coalition on Aging; College for Living; Council of Silver Haired Legislatures; Missouri Alliance of Area Agencies on Aging; Missouri Association for the Deaf; Missouri Council of the Blind; Presidents' Club for Telecommunications Justice; Paraquad, Rural Advocates for Independent Living; Services for Independent Living; Public Utilities Commission of the State of Colorado; Department of Public Utilities of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts; Oklahoma Corporation Commission; Public Service Commission of the State of Connecticut, Department of Public Utility Control; New York Telephone Company; New England Telephone and Telegraph Company, Intervenors on Appeal, v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; United States of America, Respondents, AT & T Corp.; Competitive Telecommunications Association; MFS Communications Company, Inc.; Airtouch Communications, Inc.; Nextlink Communications, L.L.C.; Sprint Spectrum, L.P.; National Cable Television Association, Inc.; MCI Telecommunications Corporation; Sprint Corp.; Cox Communications, Inc.; Vanguard Cellular Systems, Inc.; Western Wireless Corporation; American Communications Services, Inc.; KMC Telecom, Inc.; The Competition Policy Institute; Association for Local Telecommunications Services; Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association; GST Telecom, Inc.; ACC Corp.; General Communication, Inc.; Telecommunications Resellers Association; Consumer Federation of America; Ad Hoc Telecommunications Users Committee; Information Technology Industry Council; America's Carriers Telecommunication Association; Jones Intercable, Inc.; Telecommunications, Inc.; Teleport Communications Group, Inc.; Rural Telecommunications Group; Allied Associated Partners; Geld Information Systems; Pronet, Inc.; Winstar Communications, Inc.; U.S. One Communications Services; Comcast Corporation; Frontier Corporation; Anaheim, California Public Utilities Department; City of Long Beach, California; City of Manassas, Virginia; Cable & Wireless, Inc.; National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates; Time Warner Communications Holdings, Inc.; Personal Communications Industry Association; Excel Telecommunications, Inc.; Worldcom, Inc., Paging Network, Inc.; Nextwave Telecom, Inc.; Small Cable Business Association; Metrocall, Inc.; Texas Office of Public Utility Counsel, Intervenors on Appeal, Consumers' Utility Counsel Division, Georgia Governor's Office of Consumer Affairs; Honorable John D. Dingell; Honorable W.J. (Billy) Tauzin; Honorable Rick Boucher; Honorable Dennis Hastert, Amici on Behalf of Petitioner, Honorable Thomas J. Bliley, Jr.; Honorable Ernest F. Hollings; Honorable Ted Stevens; Honorable Daniel K. Inouye; Honorable Trent Lott; Honorable Edward J. Markey, Amici on Behalf of Respondent. BELL ATLANTIC-DELAWARE, INC.; Bell Atlantic-Maryland, Inc.; Bell Atlantic-New Jersey, Inc.; Bell Atlantic-Pennsylvania, Inc.; Bell Atlantic-Virginia, Inc.; Bell Atlantic-Washington, D.C., Inc.; Bell Atlantic-West Virginia, Inc., Petitioners, Maryland Public Service Commission; SBC Communications, Inc.; New York Telephone Company; New England Telephone and Telegraph Company; US Telephone Association; GTE Service Corporation; US West, Inc.; Bellsouth Corporation; Bellsouth Telecommunications, Inc.; Ameritech Corporation, Intervenors on Appeal, v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; United States of America, Respondents, Sprint Corp.; Competitive Telecommunications Association; Telecommunications Resellers Association; AT & T Corp.; National Cable Television Association, Inc.; GST Telecom, Inc.; MFS Communications Company, Inc.; KMC Telecom, Inc.; ACC Corp.; Winstar Communications, Inc.; MCI Telecommunications Corporation; America's Carriers Telecommunication Association; Jones Communications, Inc.; Air-touch Communications, Inc.; Cox Communications, Inc., Intervenors on Appeal. PACIFIC TELESIS GROUP, Petitioner, Maryland Public Service Commission; SBC Communications, Inc.; New York Telephone Company; New England Telephone and Telegraph Company; US Telephone Association; GTE Service Corporation; US West, Inc.; Bellsouth Corporation; Bellsouth Telecommunications, Inc.; Ameritech Corporation, Intervenors on Appeal, v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; United States of America, Respondents, Sprint Corp.; Competitive Telecommunications Association; Telecommunications Resellers Association; AT & T Corp.; National Cable Television Association, Inc.; GST Telecom, Inc.; MFS Communications Company, Inc.; KMC Telecom, Inc.; ACC Corp.; Winstar Communications, Inc.; MCI Telecommunications Corporation; America's Carriers Telecommunication Association; Jones Communications, Inc.; Airtouch Communications, Inc.; Cox Communications, Inc., Intervenors on Appeal. SBC COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Petitioner, Maryland Public Service Commission; New York Telephone Company; New England Telephone and Telegraph Company; US Telephone Association; GTE Service Corporation; US West, Inc.; Bellsouth Corporation; Bellsouth Telecommunications, Inc.; Ameritech Corporation, Intervenors on Appeal, v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; United States of America, Respondents, Sprint Corp.; Competitive Telecommunications Association; Telecommunications Resellers Association; AT & T Corp.; National Cable Television Association, Inc.; GST Telecom, Inc.; MFS Communications Company, Inc.; KMC Telecom, Inc.; ACC Corp.; Winstar Communications, Inc.; MCI Telecommunications Corporation; America's Carriers Telecommunication Association; Jones Communications, Inc.; Air touch Communications, Inc.; Cox Communications, Inc., Intervenors on Appeal.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Decided August 22, 1997.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Mark Fogelman, San Francisco, CA, argued, for petitioners Public Utilities and People of the State of California.

Mark L. Evans, Washington, DC, argued, for petitioners Bell Atlantic, Pacific Telesis and SBC Communications, Inc. and intervenor GTE entities.

Christopher J. Wright, Washington, DC, argued, for respondents Federal Communications Commission and United States of America.

David W. Carpenter, Chicago, IL, argued, for intervenor AT & T Corp. et al.

Before BOWMAN, WOLLMAN, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.


HANSEN, Circuit Judge.

Before us are the petitions of the California Public Utilities Commission and various providers of local telecommunications services seeking review of certain rules issued by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) pursuant to the Telecommunications Act of 1996.1 The petitioners and the intervenors supporting them (collectively "petitioners") argue that the FCC exceeded its jurisdiction in part...

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