Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 555 F.3d 669 - Firstcom, Inc. v. Qwest Corp.

Firstcom, Inc. v. Qwest Corp.’s Empirical Analysis

555 F.3d 669 · 2009

Citation profile

27
cited by 27 later decisions
1
states following
April 2020
most recently cited

5 federal appellate · 12 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently April 2020 · most notably 983 F. Supp. 2d 1121 - Kost v. Hunt (2013), American Family Mutual Insurance v. Hollander (2013)

5 federal appellate · 12 district · 1 state decisions

200200920102020decided

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 12 U.S.C. § 38 · 28 U.S.C. § 1658 · 29 U.S.C. § 185 (§ 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (Taft-Hartley Act)) · 47 U.S.C. § 151 · 47 U.S.C. § 251 · 47 U.S.C. § 252 · 47 U.S.C. § 414 · 47 U.S.C. § 415

Relies on Verizon Maryland Inc. v. Public Service Commission of Maryland · Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. v. Hall · American Telephone and Telegraph Company, v. Central Office Telephone, Inc. · North Star Steel Co. v. Thomas · Lawrence Marcus Marc Kasky, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated v. At&t Corp., Jeffrey A. Moss, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, Donna Borok Moss v. American Telephone and Telegraph Company

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

  1. “Accordingly, if [the CLECJ’s purported state law claims, in actuality, seek recovery for [the ILEC]’s alleged breach of duties imposed by sections 251 and 252 of the [Communications] Act, then [the CLEC]'s recourse was to bring claims pursuant to the Act, not [state] common law.”). Free Conferencing misreads Firstcom. The Firstcom court instructs that the Act does not create a common law cause of action, rather, if a cause of action arises because of provisions of the Act, the Act provides the only remedy. See id. (”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Nothing in [chapter 5 of title 47] ... shall in any way abridge or alter the remedies now existing at common law or by statute, but the provisions of this chapter are in addition to such remedies.” (emphasis added) (quoting 47 U.S.C. § 414 )). Therefore, § 414”
    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.