Omnipoint Corporation’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
13 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently March 2017 · most notably Town & Country Foods, Inc. v. City of Bozeman (2009), 90 F. Supp. 2d 557 - Cellular Telephone Co. v. Zoning Board of Adjustment of the Borough of Harrington Park (2000)
13 district · 2 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 Consolidated Edison Co of New York v. National Labor Relations Board · Pierce v. Underwood · McDermott International, Inc. v. Wilander · American Textile Manufacturers Institute, Inc. v. Donovan · Cellular Telephone Company at v. Town of Oyster Bay
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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Local zoning authorities may not discriminate among providers of wireless telephone service, see § 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(I), act in a manner that effectively prohibits the provision of wireless telephone services, see § 332(c) (7) (B) (i) (II), or make zoning decisions based on concerns over the environmental or health effects of the radio emissions associated with wireless telephone service, see § 332(c)(7)(B)(iv) ... In addition, a zoning board’s decision to deny permission to build a wireless service facility must be ‘in writing and supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record’.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(7) Preservation of local zoning authority (A) General authority Except as provided in this paragraph, nothing in this chapter shall limit or affect the authority of a State or local government or instrumentality thereof over decisions regarding the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities. (B) Limitations (i) The regulation of the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities by any State or local government or instrumentality thereof— (I) shall not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services; and (II) shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services. (ii) A State or local government or instrumentality thereof shall act on any request for authorization to place, construct, or modify personal wireless service facilities within a reasonable period of time after the request is duly filed with such government or instrumentality, taking into account the nature and scope of such request. (iii) Any decision by a State or local government or instrumentality thereof to deny a request to place, construct, or modify personal wireless service facilities shall be in writing and supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Any decision by a State or local government or instrumentality thereof to deny a request to place, construct, or modify personal wireless facilities shall be in writing and supported by substantial evidence contained in the record.”
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.