At&t Wireless Pcs, Inc. v. City of Atlanta, Atlanta City Council, 250 F.3d 1307 (11th Cir. 2001). · Go Syfert
Search
At&t Wireless Pcs, Inc. v. City of Atlanta, Atlanta City Council, 250 F.3d 1307 (11th Cir. 2001). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
3 citation events across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. City of El Paso (ca5, 2003-09-19)
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. City of El Paso
5th Cir. · 2003 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare, e.g., AT&T Wireless PCS, Inc. v. City of Atlanta, 223 F.3d 1324 (11th Cir.2000) (finding a remedy under § 1983 for a violation of the plaintiff's rights under the FTA), vacated for lack of jurisdiction, 223 F.3d 1324 (11th Cir.2000), reinstated, 250 F.3d 1307 (11th Cir.2001), and appeal dismissed on settlement, 264 F.3d 1314 (11th Cir.2001); Omnipoint Holdings, Inc. v. Town of Westford,f 206 F.Supp.2d 166, 173-74 (D.Mass.2002) (same), with, e.g., Nextel Partners Inc. v. Kingston Township, 286 F.3d 687, 693-96 (3d Cir.2002) (holding that an alleged violation of FTA does not provide a …
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
At&T WIRELESS PCS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CITY OF ATLANTA, Atlanta City Council, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees
00-15885.
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
May 18, 2001.
250 F.3d 1307
G. Wayne Hillis, Jr., Erika C. Birg, Parker, Hudson, Rainer & Dobbs, Atlanta, GA, Carter G. Phillips, Sidley & Austin, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Carnes, Barkett, Wilson.
Cited by 4 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM:

In AT&T Wireless PCS, Inc. v. City of Atlanta, 223 F.3d 1324 (11th Cir.2000) {“AT&T Wireless II”), we vacated our earlier opinion, AT&T Wireless PCS, Inc. v. City of Atlanta, 210 F.3d 1322 (11th Cir.2000) {“AT&T Wireless I”), and dismissed the appeal because we lacked jurisdiction over an appeal from a non-final judgment. See AT&T Wireless II, 223 F.3d at 1324. The parties to that appeal have since returned to district court, where the district court entered a final judgment in the case. They presently appeal the final judgment, submitting for our consideration the same issue we examined in AT&T Wireless I. 1 We now have jurisdiction over their appeal, and upon reconsideration, we re-instate our AT&T Wireless I opinion, published at 210 F.3d 1322. Prior opinion in appeal No. 99-12261 REINSTATED.

VACATED and REMANDED.

1

. Both parties requested that the case be resubmitted on the same briefs they had filed when the case was last before us, and without further oral argument. We granted these requests.