LUNDAHL
v.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

U.S. | 2003-03-24
No. 02-8631
Justice O’Connor took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
538 U.S. 940 Supreme Court of the United States (2003) Positive Treatment
Cited by 1 case
Opinion

Full opinion text not available for this case.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Talk Am., Inc. v. Mich. Bell Tel. Co., 564 U.S. 50 (U.S. 2011)
    …time, the Commission’s efforts were rejected for taking an unreasonably broad view of “impair[ment]” under § 251(d)(2). See Iowa Utilities Bd., 525 U. S., at 392; United States Telecom Assn. v. FCC, 290 F. 3d 415, 421-428 (CADC 2002), cert, denied, 538 U. S. 940 (2003). In the Triennial Review Order, the Commission once again reinterpreted the “impair” standard and revised the list of network elements that incumbents must provide unbundled to competitors. The Commission’s initial decision to eliminate the…

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw