Total Telecommunications Services, Inc. And Atlas Telephone Company, Inc., an Oklahoma Corporation v. American Telephone and Telegraph Company

D.C. Circuit

Total Telecommunications Services, Inc. And Atlas Telephone Company, Inc., an Oklahoma Corporation v. American Telephone and Telegraph Company

99 F.3d 448, 321 U.S. App. D.C. 309, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 41850, 1996 WL 590872

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedOctober 4, 1996

Docket96-7043

StatusUnpublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 99 F.3d 448 (Total Telecommunications Services, Inc. And Atlas Telephone Company, Inc., an Oklahoma Corporation v. American Telephone and Telegraph Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Total Telecommunications Services, Inc. And Atlas Telephone Company, Inc., an Oklahoma Corporation v. American Telephone and Telegraph Company, 99 F.3d 448, 321 U.S. App. D.C. 309, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 41850, 1996 WL 590872 (D.C. Cir. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

99 F.3d 448

321 U.S.App.D.C. 309

NOTICE: D.C. Circuit Local Rule 11(c) states that unpublished orders, judgments, and explanatory memoranda may not be cited as precedents, but counsel may refer to unpublished dispositions when the binding or preclusive effect of the disposition, rather than its quality as precedent, is relevant.
TOTAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES, INC. and Atlas Telephone
Company, Inc., An Oklahoma Corporation, Appellants,
v.
AMERICAN TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY, Appellee.

No. 96-7043.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Oct. 4, 1996.

Before: SILBERMAN, SENTELLE and TATEL, Circuit Judges.

JUDGMENT

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the briefs filed by the parties. The issues have been accorded full consideration by the Court and occasion no need for a published opinion. See D.C.Cir.Rule 36(b).

We affirm the district court's dismissal of the case. As the district court correctly found, adjudication of this dispute would require the resolution of policy issues and technical questions relating to appellants' tariffs and operating structure that the Communications Act has vested in the Federal Communications Commission. See 47 U.S.C. § 201. Because the Commission thus has primary jurisdiction, it was appropriate for the district court to dismiss the case, see Allnet Communication Service, Inc. v. NECA, 965 F.2d 1118, 1120 (D.C.Cir.1992), without addressing appellants' application for preliminary injunction, see Atchison, T. & S.F.R. Co. v. Wichita Bd. Of Trade, 412 U.S. 800, 821 (1972).

It is therefore ORDERED and ADJUDGED by the Court that the district court's judgment be affirmed.

The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after disposition of any timely petition for rehearing. See D.C.Cir.Rule 41.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

99 F.3d 448

321 U.S.App.D.C. 309

NOTICE: D.C. Circuit Local Rule 11(c) states that unpublished orders, judgments, and explanatory memoranda may not be cited as precedents, but counsel may refer to unpublished dispositions when the binding or preclusive effect of the disposition, rather than its quality as precedent, is relevant.
TOTAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES, INC. and Atlas Telephone
Company, Inc., An Oklahoma Corporation, Appellants,
v.
AMERICAN TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY, Appellee.

No. 96-7043.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Oct. 4, 1996.

Before: SILBERMAN, SENTELLE and TATEL, Circuit Judges.

JUDGMENT

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the briefs filed by the parties. The issues have been accorded full consideration by the Court and occasion no need for a published opinion. See D.C.Cir.Rule 36(b).

We affirm the district court's dismissal of the case. As the district court correctly found, adjudication of this dispute would require the resolution of policy issues and technical questions relating to appellants' tariffs and operating structure that the Communications Act has vested in the Federal Communications Commission. See 47 U.S.C. § 201. Because the Commission thus has primary jurisdiction, it was appropriate for the district court to dismiss the case, see Allnet Communication Service, Inc. v. NECA, 965 F.2d 1118, 1120 (D.C.Cir.1992), without addressing appellants' application for preliminary injunction, see Atchison, T. & S.F.R. Co. v. Wichita Bd. Of Trade, 412 U.S. 800, 821 (1972).

It is therefore ORDERED and ADJUDGED by the Court that the district court's judgment be affirmed.

The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after disposition of any timely petition for rehearing. See D.C.Cir.Rule 41.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

99 F.3d 448, 321 U.S. App. D.C. 309, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 41850, 1996 WL 590872, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/total-telecommunications-services-inc-and-atlas-te-cadc-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack