US West Communications v. MFS Intelenet, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
193 F.3d 1112 · 1999
Citation profile
49 federal appellate · 14 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 109 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2024 · most notably Verizon Communications Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission (2002), Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky (2009)
49 federal appellate · 14 district · 4 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2342 · 47 U.S.C. § 153 · 47 U.S.C. § 251 · 47 U.S.C. § 252 · 47 U.S.C. § 402
Relies on Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner · Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City · At&T Corp. v. Iowa Utilities Board · Federal Communications Commission v. ITT World Communications, Inc.
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 109 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a]n incumbent local exchange carrier shall provide such unbundled network elements in a manner that allows requesting carriers to combine such elements in order to provide such telecommunications service.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Verizon Communications Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission · Us West Communications, Inc., and United States of America, Intervenor v. Roger Hamilton, Chairman of the Oregon Public Utility Commission Ron Eachus, Commissioner of the Oregon Public Utility Commission Joan H. Smith, Commissioner of the Oregon Public Utility Commission Oregon Public Utility Commission MCI Metro Access Transmission Services, Inc. Sprint Communications, and At&t Communications of the Pacific Northwest, Inc., Us West Communications, Inc., and United States of America, Intervenor v. Roger Hamilton, Chairman of the Oregon Public Utility Commission Ron Eachus, Commissioner of the Oregon Public Utility Commission Joan H. Smith, Commissioner of the Oregon Public Utility Commission Oregon Public Utility Commission At&t Communications of the Pacific Northwest, Inc. Sprint Communications, and MCI Metro Access Transmission Services, Inc., Us West Communications, Inc. v. Worldcom Technologies, Inc.“apply the same standard the district court should apply”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Us West Communications, Inc., and United States of America, Intervenor v. Roger Hamilton, Chairman of the Oregon Public Utility Commission Ron Eachus, Commissioner of the Oregon Public Utility Commission Joan H. Smith, Commissioner of the Oregon Public Utility Commission Oregon Public Utility Commission MCI Metro Access Transmission Services, Inc. Sprint Communications, and At&t Communications of the Pacific Northwest, Inc., Us West Communications, Inc., and United States of America, Intervenor v. Roger Hamilton, Chairman of the Oregon Public Utility Commission Ron Eachus, Commissioner of the Oregon Public Utility Commission Joan H. Smith, Commissioner of the Oregon Public Utility Commission Oregon Public Utility Commission At&t Communications of the Pacific Northwest, Inc. Sprint Communications, and MCI Metro Access Transmission Services, Inc., Us West Communications, Inc. v. Worldcom Technologies, Inc. · US West Communications, Inc. v. Hamiton“Id. at 1117-18. We nevertheless concluded that the claims were not ripe for judicial review primarily because U.S. West conceded that the true-up would make it whole and, thus, might moot the appeal. Id. at 1118-19. This does not mean that U.S. West did not contest the legitimacy of such interim rates. Indeed, we expressly said otherwise: 18 US West challenges the interim rates, but says its concerns would be resolved if TCG and MFS were ordered to compensate U.S. West for any differences between the interim rates and the permanent prices, referred to as an”
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.