1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. F.3d
  4. 243 F.3d
  5. 243 F.3d 928 (2001)
 

AT&T COMMUNICATIONS OF SOUTHWEST v. CITY OF DALLAS

No. 99-11397.

243 F.3d 928 (2001)

AT&T Communications of the Southwest, Inc.; et al., Plaintiffs, AT&T Communications of the Southwest, Inc.; Taylor Communications, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. CITY OF DALLAS, TEXAS, Defendant, Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, Appellant. Caprock Communications Corp.; Golden Harbor of Texas, Inc.; Westel, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. City of Dallas, Texas, Defendant, Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, Appellant. Sprint Communications Company, LP, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. City of Dallas, Texas, Defendant, Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, Appellant.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

March 15, 2001.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Lionel Mark Schooler (argued), Jackson & Walker, Houston, TX, for Sprint Communications Company LP.

David John Schenck (argued), Robert Edwin Davis, Hughes & Luce, Dallas, TX, David F. Brown, Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., Austin, TX, for Southwestern Bell Telephone Co.

Clarence A. West, Joe Wallace Beverly, Houston, TX, for City of Dallas, Texas and Texas Coalition of Cities on Franchised Utilities Issues (TCCFUI), Amicus Curiae.

Thomas K. Anson, Sheinfeld, Maley & Kay, Austin, TX, George H. Tarpley, Sheinfeld, Maley & Kay, Dallas, TX, David F. Graham (argued), Sidley & Austin, Chicago, IL, Andrew W. Austin, Austin, TX, for AT&T Communications of the Southwest, Inc.

Richard L. Crozier, Davidson & Troilo, Austin, TX, for Caprock Communications Corp., Golden Harbor of Texas Inc., Westel Inc. and Taylor Communications Inc.

Before HILL, JOLLY and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

E. GRADY JOLLY, Circuit Judge:

Southwestern Bell Telephone Company ("Southwestern Bell") appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment for a number of telecommunications companies wishing to enter into the local telephone market in Dallas. At this point, all parties agree that this case, involving a Dallas city ordinance imposing fees and restrictions on local telephone providers, is moot, because the ordinance has been preempted by an intervening Texas statute...

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