South Central Bell Telephone Company v. Louisiana Public Service Commission (1984)

South Central Bell Telephone Co. v. Louisiana Public Service Commission, 744 F.2d 1107, 1123-24 (5th Cir.1984), petition for cert. filed, 53 U.S.L.W. 3449 (U.S. Nov. 30, 1984) (No. 84-870).

South Central Bell Telephone Co. v. Louisiana Public Service Commission, 744 F.2d 1107, 1123-24 (5th Cir.1984), petition for cert. filed, 53 U.S.L.W. 3449 (U.S. Nov. 30, 1984) (No. 84-870).

See Hawaiian Telephone Co., 827 F.2d at 1272 (“[w]e think that ‘regularly made’ in § 401(b) simply refers to procedural regularity”); South Central Telephone Co., 744 F.2d at 1118 (“the requirement of ‘due service’ is met if the defendant in a § 401(b) proceeding received notice legally sufficient to make the order enforceable”). iii) Disobedience of the Order It is clear that under the cross-ownership rule promulgated by the FCC, “no license for [a] ...

Co., 744 F.2d at 1117 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 41 Lansdowne, 713 F.3d at 200 . entities, a § 401(b) action to enforce that order would present a court with nothing but generic abstractions to enforce.”42 Here, the FCC’s exclusive access prohibition orders cited by Plaintiff clearly define the roles of the parties: a cable operator or provider of multichannel video programming distributors (“MVPDs”) are prohibited from “enforce[ing] or execut[ing] any …

Bell, 744 F.2d at 1113 (rate of return reduced from 13.5% to 12%); Illinois Bell, 740 F.2d at 571 ($95,000.00 lost each day); Southwestern Bell, 738 F.2d at 908 n. 15 ($11,256,223.00 in annual revenues lost).

Co., 744 F.2d at 1115.