NATIONAL ASS'N OF STATE UTIL. CONS. ADV. v. F.C.C.

Nos. 05-11682, 05-12601.

457 F.3d 1238 (2006)

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE UTILITY CONSUMER ADVOCATES, Petitioner, National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, Intervenor-Petitioner, v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, Respondent, AT&T Corporation, Cingular Wireless, Inc., Leap Wireless International, Inc., Nextel Communications, Inc., Sprint Corporation, T-Mobile USA, Inc., Verizon, Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association, Intervenors-Respondents. Vermont Public Service Board, Petitioner, v. Federal Communications Commission, Respondent.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

July 31, 2006.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Matthew J. Hardy, Consumer's Utility Counsel, Clare A. McGuire, Governor's Office of Consumer Affairs, Atlanta, GA, Patrick W. Pearlman, Consumer Advocate Div. of WV Pub. Serv. Com'n, Charleston, WV, for Petitioner in No. 05-11682.

Laurel Bergold, Laurence N. Bourne, FCC, Robert B. Nicholson, James J. Fredricks, U.S. Dept. of Justice/Antitrust Div., James Bradford Ramsay, Nat'l Assoc. of Reg. Utility Com'n, Washington, DC, for FCC.

Stacy J. Canan, Michael Robert Schuster, AARP Found. Lit., Washington, DC, Seth E. Mermin, San Francisco, CA, for Amici Curiae.

David L. Lawson, Washington, DC, L. Andrew Tollin, Wilkinson, Barker & Knauer, LLP, James Henry Barker, III, Latham & Watkins, Christopher J. Wright, Harris, Wiltshire & Grannis, LLP, Helgi C. Walker, Andrew G. McBride, Wiley, Rein & Fielding, LLP, Sara F. Leibman, Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky & Popeco, PC, Washington, DC, Joshua E. Swift, William H. Johnson, Verizon, Arlington, VA, Seamus Cotter Duffy, Christopher M. Arfaa, Drinker, Biddle & Reath, LLP, Philadelphia, PA, Maureen A. Scott, AZ Corp. Com'n, Legal Div., Phoenix, AZ, for Intervenors.

Before BLACK, PRYOR and COX, Circuit Judges.


PRYOR, Circuit Judge:

The key issue presented in this petition for review is whether the Federal Communications Commission exceeded its authority, under section 332(c)(3)(A) of the Communications Act of 1934, when it issued an order that preempted the states from requiring or prohibiting the use of line items in customer billing for cellular wireless services. 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(3)(A); see Truth-in-Billing and Billing Format, Nat'l Ass'n of State Util. Consumer...

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