Verizon Telephone Companies v. Federal Communications Commission’s Empirical Analysis
453 F.3d 487 · 2006
Citation profile
2 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 717C · 15 U.S.C. § 717D · 17 U.S.C. § 201 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 28 U.S.C. § 2342 · 47 U.S.C. § 155 · 47 U.S.C. § 201 · 47 U.S.C. § 203 · 47 U.S.C. § 204
Relies on Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment · Union of Concerned Scientists v. Atomic Energy Commission · National Rural Telecom Ass'n v. Federal Communications Commission · Capital Network System, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission · Tulare County v. Bush
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[Applications for review are designed to ensure that if a delegated authority, such as the Wireless Bureau, renders a decision, the Commission itself has the opportunity to review the decision.before this Court, considers- it. The FCC Rules provide that “[a]ny person aggrieved by any action taken pursuant to delegated authority may file , an applica-. tion requesting review of .that action by the Commission.” “The filing of an application for review shall be a condition precedent to judicial review of any action taken pursuant to delegated authority.” FCC Rules § 1.115(a), (k) (47 C.F.R. §' 1.115(a), (k)). This rule prevents a party from appealing directly to this Court from a decision made by a delegated authority. Under these two provisions, the full FCC must have the opportunity to review all cases and all aspects of those cases before parties may exercise their statutory right to appeal to this Court under 47’U.S.C. § 402(b) (providing that “[ajppeals may be taken from decisions and orders of the Commission to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia” in ten categories of cases).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), the Commission shall, with respect to any investigation under this section of the lawfulness of a charge, classification, regulation, or practice, issue an order concluding such investigation within 5 months after the date on which the complaint was filed. (2) The Commission shall, with respect to any such investigation initiated prior to November 3, 1988, issue an order concluding the investigation not later than 12 months after November 3, 1988. (3) Any order concluding an investigation under paragraph (1) or (2) shall be a final order and may be appealed under section 402(a) of this title.”
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.