Illinois Bell Telephone Company v. Worldcom Technologies, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
179 F.3d 566 · 1999
Citation profile
31 federal appellate · 10 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 84 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2016 · most notably Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. Public Utility Commission of Texas (2000), MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Illinois Bell Telephone Co. (2000)
31 federal appellate · 10 district · 5 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Bankers Trust Co. v. Mallis · Federal Communications Commission v. National Citizens Committee for Broadcasting · At&T Corp. v. Iowa Utilities Board · Otis v. City of Chicago
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 84 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a State commission makes a determination under [§ 252],”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he [Illinois Commerce] Commission was doing what it is charged with doing in the [1996] Act and in the FCC ruling [i.e., 1999 ISP Ruling]. It was determining what the parties intended under the [interconnection] agreements”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“That the Act does not require reciprocal compensation for calls to ISPs is not to say that it prohibits it. The Act simply sets out the obligations of all local exchange carriers to provide for reciprocal compensation.... Then in § 252(d)(2) state commissions are instructed that terms and conditions for reciprocal compensation are not to be considered reasonable unless they provide “for the mutual and reciprocal recovery by each carrier of costs associated with the transport and termination on each carrier’s network facilities of calls that originate on the network facilities of the other carrier” and that the costs be determined on the basis of a “reasonable approximation of the additional costs of terminating such calls.” The Act clearly does not set out specific conditions which one party could enforce against the other. The details are left to the parties, or the commissions, to work out.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.