green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
9.0 score
“att wireless i”
Treatment trajectory · 2000 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2000
2013
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 14 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Qwest Corporation v. City of Santa Fe
(2×)
AT & T Wireless explicitly relies on this language to conclude that § 332(c) creates a federal right. 210 F.3d at 1326.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Qwest Corp. v. City of Santa Fe, New Mexico
Requiring local governments to pay their op *1316 ponent’s attorney fees pursuant to Section 1983 and 42 U.S.C. § 1988 whenever a court determines that local laws are preempted by Section 253 would upset this delicate balance and “increase the federal burden on local land-use regulation beyond what Congress intended.” Kingston Township, 286 F.3d at 695 ; cf. City of Atlanta, 210 F.3d at 1330 (Carnes, J., concurring specially) (noting potential for imbalance between large multi-national telecommunications carriers and their affiliates that typically appear as plaintiffs in Section 253 li…
cited
Cited "see"
PRIMECO PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS, LTD. PARTNERSHIP v. City of Mequon
See AT&T Wireless PCS, Inc. v. City of Atlanta, 210 F.3d 1322 (11th Cir.2000), vacated, 220 F.3d 594 (11th Cir.2000).
discussed
Cited "see"
Nextel Partners Inc. v. Kingston Township
See AT&T Wireless PCS, Inc. v. City of Atlanta, 210 F.3d 1322 (11th Cir.2000), vacated on other grounds, 223 F.3d 1324 (11th Cir.2000), but we respectfully disagree with the reasoning of that decision. 7 *696 The vacated decision relied on the TCA’s savings clause, which provides that the Act is not to be construed “to modify, impair, or supercede Federal, state, or local law unless so provided in such Act or amendments.” Pub.L.
discussed
Cited "see"
Nextel Partners Inc. v. Kingston Township
See AT&T Wireless PCS, Inc. v. City of Atlanta, 210 F.3d 1322 (11th Cir.2000), vacated on other grounds, 223 F.3d 1324 (11th Cir.2000), but we respectfully disagree with the reasoning of that decision. 7 The vacated decision relied on the TCA's savings clause, which provides that the Act is not to be construed "to modify, impair, or supercede Federal, state, or local law unless so provided in such Act or amendments." Pub.L.
discussed
Cited "see"
Sprint Spectrum, L.P. v. Town of Ogunquit
See AT & T Wireless PCS, Inc. v. City of Atlanta, 210 F.3d 1322 (11th Cir.2000), vacated pending reh’g en banc, 260 F.3d 1320 (11th Cir.), and appeal dismissed per stipulation, 264 F.3d 1314 (11th Cir.2001).
discussed
Cited "see"
Destek v. Verizon, et al.
See AT&T Wireless PCS, Inc. v. City of Atlanta, 210 F.3d 1322 , 1327, 1327 n.7 (11th Cir. 2000) (subsequent procedural history omitted) (concluding that the Telecommunications Act can be - 18 - Commission and the three individual Commissioners violated Destek's right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.
cited
Cited "see"
David W. Butts v. Volusia County
See AT&T Wireless PCS, Inc. v. City of Atlanta, 210 F.3d 1322 , 1324 (11th Cir. 2000).
cited
Cited "see"
David W. Butts v. Volusia County
See AT&T Wireless PCS, Inc. v. City of Atlanta, 210 F.3d 1322 , 1324 (11th Cir.2000).
cited
Cited "see"
William G. Ward v. County of Orange
See AT&T Wireless PCS, Inc. v. City of Atlanta, 210 F.3d 1322 , 1324 (11th Cir.2000).
cited
Cited "see"
William G. Ward v. County of Orange
See AT&T Wireless PCS, Inc. v. City of Atlanta, 210 F.3d 1322 , 1324 (11th Cir. 2000).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
TN v. Chattanooga
See, e.g., AT&T Wireless PCS, Inc., 210 F.3d at 1328 (finding that the language of the savings clause “clearly forbid[s]” the court from construing the TCA to foreclose a § 1983 remedy); Abrams, 354 F.3d at 1100-1101 (same); but see Nextel Partners Inc., 286 F.3d at 696 (“[O]ur holding in this case — that the relevant provision of the TCA does not create a right that is enforceable under § 1983 — does not mean that the TCA in any way modified, impaired, or super[s]eded § 1983.”).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
BellSouth Mobility v. Miami-Dade County, Florida
See also AT & T Wireless PCS, Inc. v. City of Atlanta, 210 F.3d 1322 , 1326 n. 5 (11th Cir.2000) ("District courts interpreting the TCA have held that the phrase 'substantial evidence contained in a written record' is the traditional standard used for judicial review of agency actions.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
At&t Wireless Pcs, Inc.
v.
City of Atlanta
v.
City of Atlanta
99-12261.
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Apr 26, 2000.
Published
Citer courts: Eleventh Circuit (1)
210 F.3d 1322 (11th Cir. 2000)
AT&T WIRELESS PCS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CITY OF ATLANTA, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 99-12261.
United States Court of Appeals,
Eleventh Circuit.
April 26, 2000.
OPINION
1
Opinion vacated. See September 7, 2000 opinion.