428 F. Supp. 2d 930 - OCMC, Inc. v. Norris’s Empirical Analysis
2006
Citation profile
1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1391 · 47 U.S.C. § 151 · 47 U.S.C. § 152 · 47 U.S.C. § 207 · 47 U.S.C. § 332 · 47 U.S.C. § 414
Relies on Younger v. Harris · Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States · Steffel v. Thompson · Middlesex County Ethics Committee v. Garden State Bar Ass'n · Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd.
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 1 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In accord with our precedents, we tentatively conclude that the line between the Commission’s jurisdiction and states’ jurisdiction over carriers’ billing practices is properly drawn to where states only may enforce their own generally applicable contractual and consumer protection laws, albeit as they apply to carriers’ billing practices. * * * * * We also solicit comment on the practical reach of the line that we tentatively delineate between the Commission’s jurisdiction and states’ jurisdiction over carriers’ billing practices. For instance, Verizon Wireless cites New Mexico regulations that Verizon Wireless claims effectively bar carriers from including non-communications services on bills. It also cites a California regulation that permits carriers to include non-communications services on bills, but requires them to place charges for such services in one or more separate sections of the telephone bill clearly labeled “N oncommunications-related charges.” Pursuant to the jurisdictional line that we delineate, do such protections against “cramming” properly fall within the Commission’s jurisdiction, or within states’ jurisdiction?”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“There will remain very important questions about emergency services, consumer protections from waste, fraud and abuse and recovering the fair costs of the network. It is not true that states are or should be complete bystanders with regard to these issues. Indeed, there is a long tradition of federal/state partnership in addressing such issues, even with regard to interstate services. For example, in long distance services, the FCC and state commissions have structured a true partnership to combat slamming and cramming.”
1 later decision 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.