City of Auburn v. Qwest Corp.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

41 federal appellate · 15 district · 7 state decisions

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 111 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(a) In general No State or local statute or regulation, or other State or local legal requirement, may prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the ability of any entity to provide any interstate or intrastate telecommunications service. (b) State regulatory authority Nothing in this section shall affect the ability of a State to impose, on a competitively neutral basis and consistent with section 254 of this section, requirements necessary to preserve and advance universal service, protect the public safety and welfare, ensure the continued quality of telecommunications services, and safeguard the rights of consumers. (c) State and local government authority Nothing in this section affects the authority of a State or local government to manage the public rights-of-way or to require fair and reasonable compensation from telecommunications providers, on a competitively neutral and nondiscriminatory basis, for use of public rights-of-way on a nondiscriminatory basis, if the compensation required is publicly disclosed by such government.”

   7 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 405 F. Supp. 2d 1047 - Level 3 Communications v. CITY OF ST. LOUIS, MO · 240 F. Supp. 2d 176 - City of Rome, New York v. Verizon Communications Inc.

2. “1) regulate the time or location of excavation to preserve effective traffic flow, prevent hazardous road conditions, or minimize notice impacts; 2) require a company to place its facilities underground rather than overhead, consistent with the requirements imposed on other utility companies; 3) require a company to pay fees to recover an appropriate share of the increased street repair and paving costs that result from repeated excavation; 4) enforce local zoning regulations; 5) require a company to indemnify the City against any claims of injury arising from the company's excavation.”

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Illinois Bell Telephone v. VILLAGE OF ITASCA, ILL. · NextG Networks of California, Inc. v. County of Los Angeles

3. “[S]ection 253(c) preserves the authority of state and local governments to manage public rights-of-way. Local governments must be allowed to perform the range of vital tasks necessary to preserve the physical integrity of the streets and highways, to control the orderly flow of vehicles and pedestrians, to manage gas, water, cable, (both electric and cable television), and telephone facilities that crisscross the streets and public rights-of-way ... [T]he types of activities that fall within the sphere of appropriate rights-of-way management.. .include coordination of construction schedules, determination of insurance, bonding and indemnity requirements, establishment and enforcement of building codes, and keeping track of the various systems using the rights-of-way to prevent interference between them.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. NextG Networks of California, Inc. v. County of Los Angeles · 263 F. Supp. 2d 471 - TC Systems, Inc. v. Town of Colonie, New York