IN RE MCI TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMPLAINT

Nos. 112363, 112364, and 112367-112369, Calendar No. 12.

596 N.W.2d 164 (1999)

460 Mich. 396

In re MCI TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMPLAINT Against Ameritech Michigan and GTE North Incorporated Relative To Their Not Making Intralata Equal Access Available To MCI In The State of Michigan. Michigan Public Service Commission, MCI Telecommunications Corporation, AT & T Communications of Michigan, Inc., and Attorney General of the State of Michigan, Appellants, v. Michigan Bell Telephone Company, doing business as Ameritech Michigan, Appellee, MCI Telecommunications Corporation, and AT & T Communications of Michigan, Inc. Plaintiffs-appellants, and Michigan Public Service Commission and Attorney General of the State of Michigan, Intervening Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Michigan Bell Telephone Company, doing business as Ameritech Michigan, Defendant-Appellee.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Decided July 8, 1999.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Jennifer M. Granholm, Attorney General, Thomas L. Casey, Solicitor General, J. Peter Lark and Orjiakor N. Isiogu, Assistant Attorneys General, Special Litigation Division, Lansing, for Michigan Public Service Commission and the state of Michigan.

Fischer, Franklin & Ford (by George Hogg, Jr., Arthur J. LeVasseur, and Sidney M. Berman ), Detroit, Joan Marsh and John J. Reidy, III, Chicago, of counsel, for AT & T Communications of Michigan Inc.; Dykema, Gossett, P.L.L.C. (by Albert Ernst and Lori M. Silsbury ), Lansing, and MCI Worldcom, Inc. (by William Single, IV, and Mark B. Ehrlich), of counsel, for MCI Telecommunications Corporation, Washington, D.C.

David A. Voges, Henry J. Boynton, and David M. Gadaleto, Assistant Attorneys General, Lansing, for Michigan Public Service Commission.

Dickinson, Wright, P.L.L.C. (by Joseph A. Fink, Peter H. Ellsworth, John M. Dempsey, Jeffery V. Stuckey, and Jennifer L. Frye ), Lansing, and Michael A. Holmes, Detroit, for appellee Ameritech Michigan.


Opinion

MICHAEL F. CAVANAGH, J.

In these consolidated cases, we are called on to address whether Ameritech must provide intraLATA toll dialing parity regardless of whether it is afforded the opportunity to compete in the interLATA market, and to review the appropriateness of various Michigan Public Service Commission (PSC) orders that were entered to compel Ameritech to provide such parity. For the reasons...

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