QWEST CORPORATION, Petitioner,
v.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; United States of America, Respondents,
AT & T CORP. ("AT & T"); Rural Telephone Coalition; Vermont Department of Public Service; State of California and The Public Utilities Commission of the State of California; The Maine Public Utilities Commission ("Maine"); Puerto Rico Telephone Company, Inc.; Worldcom, Inc., formerly known as MCI Worldcom, Inc.; 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.; New York Telephone Company; New England Telephone and Telegraph Company; The Wyoming Public Service Commission; GTE Service Corporation, Intervenors.
Qwest Corporation, Petitioner,
v.
Federal Communications Commission; United States of America, Respondents,
AT & T Corp. ("AT & T"); Rural Telephone Coalition; Puerto Rico Telephone Company, Inc.; GTE Service Corporation; 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.; New York Telephone Company; New England Telephone and Telegraph Company; Worldcom, Inc., formerly known as MCI Worldcom, Inc., Intervenors.
Vermont Department Of Public Service; Montana Public Service Commission; Montana Consumer Counsel, Petitioners,
v.
Federal Communications Commission; United States of America, Respondents,
AT & T CORP. ("AT & T"); 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.; New York Telephone Company; New England Telephone and Telegraph Company; Qwest Corporation, Intervenors.
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
July 31, 2001.
July 31, 2001.
Attorney(s) appearing for the Case
Matthew A. Brill of Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering, Washington, DC (John H. Harwood II, William R. Richardson, Jr., Francesca Bignami of Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering; Washington, D.C.; Robert B. McKenna of Qwest Corporation, Denver, CO; Steven R. Beck of Qwest Corporation, Washington, D.C., with him on the briefs), for Petitioner Qwest Corporation.
Elisabeth H. Ross of Birch, Horton, Bittner and Cherot, Washington, DC (Douglas S. Burdin, Allison M. Ellis of Birch, Horton, Bittner and Cherot; Washington, D.C.; John Sayles of Vermont Department of Public Service, Montpelier, VT; Martin Jacobson of Montana Public Service Commission, Helena, Montana; Robert A. Nelson, Thomas S. Muri of Montana Consumer Counsel, Helena, MT, with her on the briefs), for Petitioners Vermont Department of Public Service et al.
James M. Carr, Counsel (Christopher J. Wright, General Counsel, John E. Ingle, Deputy Associate General Counsel, Lisa S. Gelb, Counsel, with him on the brief), Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC, for Respondent Federal Communications Commission.
Gene S. Schaerr of Sidley & Austin, Washington, DC (David L. Lawson, James P. Young, Christopher T. Shenk of Sidley & Austin, Washington, D.C.; Mark C. Rosenblum, Peter H. Jacoby, Judy Sello of AT & T Corp., Basking Ridge, NJ; Thomas F. O'Neil III, William Single, IV of WorldCom, Inc., Washington, D.C., with him on the brief), for Intervenors AT & T Corp. et al.
Elisabeth H. Ross of Birch, Horton, Bittner and Cherot, Washington, DC (Douglas S. Burdin, Allison M. Ellis of Birch, Horton, Bittner and Cherot; Washington, D.C.; John Sayles of Vermont Department of Public Service, Montpelier, VT; Joel B. Shifman of Maine Public Utilities Commission, Augusta, ME, with her on the brief), for Intervenors Vermont Department of Public Service et al.
Before EBEL, BALDOCK and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
EBEL, Circuit Judge.
Agencies play an important role in rational governance because they develop expertise in specialized areas. Principles of checks and balances, however, demand that agencies provide full explanation for their actions to enable effective judicial review.
In the cases before us, we reverse and remand the Ninth Order of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) because it does not provide sufficient reasoning or record evidence to support...
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.
