Home/Supreme Court/Verizon Communications Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission

Verizon Communications Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission

531 U.S. 1124, 121 S. Ct. 877, 148 L. Ed. 2d 788, 69 U.S.L.W. 3495, 2001 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 578, 2001 U.S. LEXIS 947
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedJanuary 22, 2001
DocketNo. 00-511; No. 00-555; No. 00-587; No. 00-590; No. 00-602
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 531 U.S. 1124 (Verizon Communications Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Verizon Communications Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, 531 U.S. 1124, 121 S. Ct. 877, 148 L. Ed. 2d 788, 69 U.S.L.W. 3495, 2001 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 578, 2001 U.S. LEXIS 947 (2001).

Opinion

C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari granted limited to the following questions: “(1) Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that 47 U. S. C. § 252(d)(1) (Telecommunications Act of 1996) forecloses the cost methodology adopted by the Federal Communications Commission, which is based on the efficient replacement cost of existing technology, for determining the interconnection rates that new entrants into local telecommunications markets must pay incumbent local telephone companies. (2) Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that neither the Takings Clause nor the Telecommunications Act of 1996 requires the incorporation of an incumbent local exchange carrier’s ‘historical’ costs into the rates that it may charge new entrants for access to its network elements. (3) Whether 47 U. S. C. § 251(c)(3) [1125]*1125prohibits regulators from requiring that incumbent local telephone companies combine certain previously uncombined network elements when a new entrant requests the combination and agrees to compensate the incumbent for performing that task.” Cases consolidated, and a total of one hour allotted for oral argument.

Justice O’Connor took no part in the consideration or decision of these petitions.

Reported below: 219 F. 3d 744.

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

Related

WorldCom, Inc. v. Connecticut Department of Public Utility Control
375 F. Supp. 2d 86 (D. Connecticut, 2005)
Michigan Bell Telephone Co. v. Engler
72 F. App'x 380 (Sixth Circuit, 2003)
Us West Communications, Inc., a Colorado Corporation, Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellee v. Renz D. Jennings, as a Member of the Arizona Corporation Commission Carl J. Kunasek, as a Member of the Arizona Corporation Commission James M. Irvin, as a Member of the Arizona Corporation Commission, Defendants-Cross-Defendants-Appellees, American Communications Services, Inc., a Delaware Corporation AKA Espire Communications, Inc., Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Cross-Claimant-Appellant. Us West Communications, Inc., a Colorado Corporation v. Renz D. Jennings, as a Member of the Arizona Corporation Commission Carl J. Kunasek, as a Member of the Arizona Corporation Commission Tcg Phoenix, a General Partnership Arizona Corporation Commission James M. Irvin, and Brooks Fiber Communications of Tucson, Inc., a Delaware Corporation MCI Telecommunications Corporation, a Delaware Corporation McImetro Access Transmission Services, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Mfs Communications Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Mfs Intelenet of Arizona, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Worldcom Technologies, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Us West Communications, Inc., a Colorado Corporation, Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellee v. Renz D. Jennings, as a Member of the Arizona Corporation Commission Carl J. Kunasek, as a Member of the Arizona Corporation Commission James M. Irvin, as a Member of the Arizona Corporation Commission, Defendants-Cross-Defendants-Appellees, at & T Communications of the Mountain States, Defendant-Counter-Defendant-Appellant, Tcg Phoenix, a General Partnership, Defendant-Cross-Claimant-Appellant, American Communications Services, Inc., a Delaware Corporation AKA Espire Communications, Inc., Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Cross-Claimant-Appellee
304 F.3d 950 (Ninth Circuit, 2002)
US West Communications, Inc. v. Jennings
304 F.3d 950 (Ninth Circuit, 2002)
Southern New England Telephone Co. v. Department of Public Utility Control
803 A.2d 879 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 2002)
MCI Worldcom Network Services, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission
274 F.3d 542 (D.C. Circuit, 2001)
MCI WrldCom Ntwrk v. FCC
274 F.3d 542 (D.C. Circuit, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
531 U.S. 1124, 121 S. Ct. 877, 148 L. Ed. 2d 788, 69 U.S.L.W. 3495, 2001 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 578, 2001 U.S. LEXIS 947, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/verizon-communications-inc-v-federal-communications-commission-scotus-2001.