← 917 F.2d 30 - McI Telecommunications Corporation v. Federal Communications Commission

McI Telecommunications Corporation v. Federal Communications Commission’s Empirical Analysis

917 F.2d 30 · 1990

Citation profile

cited by 43 later decisions

cited 1 times by the Supreme Court

states following

May 2016

most recently cited

22 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 43 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2016 · most notably MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co. (1994), Ting v. AT&T (2003)

22 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 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. § 202 · 47 U.S.C. § 203 · 47 U.S.C. § 204 · 47 U.S.C. § 208 · 47 U.S.C. § 402 · 49 U.S.C. § 10741 · 5 U.S.C. § 706

Relies on Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association of United States Inc v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company Consumer Alert · Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc. · Clarke v. Securities Industry Assn. · Cargill, Inc. v. Monfort of Colorado, Inc. · Maislin Industries, U. S., Inc. v. Primary Steel, 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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

“[i]f the services are 'like,' the carrier offering them has the burden of justifying the price disparity as reasonable.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
e.g. National Communications Association, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant v. At&t Corp., Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee · National Communications Ass'n v. AT & T Corp.
“[a] difference in price is not unreasonable if there is a `neutral, rational basis underlying[the disparity].'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
e.g. Panatronic Usa, a California General Partnership Lemar Textile Co. v. At&t Corporation · Ting v. AT&T
“It is one thing for the FCC to decline to investigate a tariff in the first place; that decision is entrusted to its unreviewable discretion. It is quite another for it to note the importance of a question concerning a tariff, request and take evidence on the matter, and then “at that point change its mind, wiping out the hearing as though it had never occurred, and in effect decide that it will not enter upon a hearing.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
e.g. New York State Department of Law v. Federal Communications Commission

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.