Omnipoint Communications Enterprises, L.P. v. Zoning Hearing Board of Easttown Township (2003)
green
· 52 citation events
across 18 courts.
Showing the 28 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 2003 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
200320142026
Sort:
By significance ·
Most recent
green
MetroPCS, Inc. v. City & County of San Francisco (2005)
P’ship v. Penn Township Butler County, 196 F.3d 469 , 480 n. 8 (3d Cir.1999) (internal quotation marks omitted) (emphasis added); Willoth, 176 F.3d at 643 (“[I]t is not unreasonably, discriminatory to deny a subsequent application for a cell site that is substantially more intrusive, than existing cell sites by virtue of its structure, placement or cumulative impact.”); see also Omnipoint, 331 F.3d at 395 (“Permitting the erection of a communications tower in a business dist…
“Permitting the erection of a communications tower in a business district does not compel the [zoning board] to permit a similar tower at a later date in a residen tial district.”
P'ship v. Penn Township Butler County, 196 F.3d 469 , 480 n. 8 (3d Cir.1999) (internal quotation marks omitted) (emphasis added); Willoth, 176 F.3d at 643 ("[I]t is not unreasonably discriminatory to deny a subsequent application for a cell site that is substantially more intrusive than existing cell sites by virtue of its structure, placement or cumulative impact."); see also Omnipoint, 331 F.3d at 395 ("Permitting the erection of a communications tower in a business distri…
"Permitting the erection of a communications tower in a business district does not compel the [zoning board] to permit a similar tower at a later date in a residential district."
L.P. v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Easttown Twp., 331 F.3d 386, 399 (3d Cir. 2003).
green
T-Mobile USA Inc. v. City of Anacortes (2009)
Id. at 734. [4] In MetroPCS, we adopted the “least intrusive means” standard used by the Second and Third Circuit. 400 F.3d at 734 (citing ATP Pittsburgh, L.P. v. Penn Twp., 196 F.3d 469, 480 (3d Cir. 1999); Omnipoint Commc’ns Enters., L.P. v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Easttown Twp., 331 F.3d 386, 398 (3d Cir. 2003); Nextel West Corp. v. Unity Twp., 282 F.3d 257, 266 (3d Cir. 2002); and Sprint Spectrum L.P. v. Willoth, 176 F.3d 630, 642 (2d Cir. 1999)).
green
T-MOBILE USA, INC. v. City of Anacortes (2009)
In MetroPCS, we adopted the “least intrusive means” standard used by the Second and Third Circuit. 400 F.3d at 734 (citing APT Pittsburgh, L.P. v. Penn Twp., 196 F.3d 469 , 480 (3d Cir.1999); Omnipoint Commc’ns Enters., L.P. v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Easttown Twp., 331 F.3d 386, 398 (3d Cir.2003); Nextel West Corp. v. Unity Twp., 282 F.3d 257, 266 (3d Cir. 2002); and Sprint Spectrum L.P. v. Willoth, 176 F.3d 630, 642 (2d Cir.1999)).
green
Ogden Fire Co. No. 1 v. Upper Chichester Township (2007)
General legal principles “The TCA does not prohibit all discrimination against providers, only unreasonable discrimination.” Omnipoint Commc’ns Enters., L.P. v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Easttown Twp., 331 F.3d 386, 395 (3d Cir.2003) (citation omitted).
green
Ogden Fire Co No 1 v. Upper Chichester Twp (2007)
General legal principles “The TCA does not prohibit all discrimination against 60 providers, only unreasonable discrimination.” Omnipoint Commc’ns Enters., L.P. v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Easttown Twp., 331 F.3d 386, 395 (3d Cir. 2003) (citation omitted).
citation omitted
green
Ogden Fire Co No 1 v. Upper Chichester Twp (2007)
General legal principles “The TCA does not prohibit all discrimination against 60 providers, only unreasonable discrimination.” Omnipoint Commc’ns Enters., L.P. v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Easttown Twp., 331 F.3d 386, 395 (3d Cir. 2003) (citation omitted).
citation omitted
green
Voicestream Minneapolis, Inc. v. St. Croix County (2003)
L.P. v. Town of Pelham, 313 F.3d 620, 629 (1st Cir.2002). 7 In order to establish a violation of the TCA's anti-prohibition clause, the service provider must first show that its proposed facility will close a "significant gap" in coverage See Omnipoint Communications Enters., L.P. v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Easttown Township, 331 F.3d 386, 399-400 (3d Cir.2003); Second Generation Props., 313 F.3d at 631-32 ; Sprint Spectrum, L.P. v. Willoth, 176 F.3d 630, 643 (2d Cir.1999).
Whether Defendant’s decision unreasonably discriminates against Plaintiff “The TCA does not prohibit all discrimination against providers, only unreasonable discrimination.” Omnipoint Commc’ns Enters. v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Easttown Twp., 331 F.3d 386, 395 (3d Cir.2003) (citation omitted).
green
T-Mobile Central v. UNIFIED GOV'T OF WYANDOTTE (2007)
P'ship v. City of Mequon, 242 F.Supp.2d 567, 577 (E.D.Wis.2003), aff'd 352 F.3d 1147 (7th Cir.2003) (finding that commission's denial based on conclusion that alternative sites were available was not based on substantial evidence where all evidence introduced indicated that the sites at issue were not adequate alternatives and there was no evidence in the record indicating that such sites were technologically feasible alternatives). [64] Omnipoint Commc'ns Enterprises, L.P. …
green
Nextel West Corp. v. TOWN OF EDGEWOOD, NEW MEXICO (2006)
Second, the plaintiff must show that the government body unreasonably discriminated.” Omnipoint Commc’ns Enters., L.P. v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Easttown Twp., 331 F.3d 386, 395 (3d Cir.2003) (citing Nextel West Corp. v. Unity Twp., 282 F.3d 257, 266 (3d Cir.2002)).
green
TowerCo 2013, LLC v. Berlin Township (2023)
Bloomfield, 691 F.3d at 808 (quoting Omnipoint Commc’ns Enters., L.P. v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Easttown Twp., 331 F.3d 386, 398 (3rd Cir. 9 Apparently, there exists additional Verizon metrics on call coverage and related data showing the coverage gap.
Enters., L.P. v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Easttown Twp., 331 F.3d 386, 398 (3d Cir. Pa. 2003).
Second, the plaintiff must show that the government body unreasonably discriminated.” Nextel West Corp. v. Town of Edgewood, N.M., 479 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1229 (D.N.M. 2006) (quoting Omnipoint Commc’ns Enters., L.P. v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Easttown Twp., 331 F.3d 386, 395 (3d Cir. 2003)).
green
Horvath Towers V, LLC v. Indiana Twp. Bd. of Supers. (2020)
The ‘user-oriented’ approach [or one-provider rule], followed by the Third Circuit, requires the applicant to demonstrate that ‘the area the new facility will serve is not already served by another provider.’ Omnipoint Comm[c’ns] Enter[s.], L.P. v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Easttown Twp., 331 F.3d 386, 398 (3d Cir. 2003).
Enters., L.P. v. Zoning Hearing Bd., 331 F.3d 386, 399 (3rd Cir. 2003) (finding a lack of drive test data renders an expert's opinion on signal strength unsupported); United States v. Sepulveda, 115 F.3d 882, 891 (11th Cir. 1997) (finding the expert's testimony lacked precision and thus did not support the particular premise at issue).
finding a lack of drive test data renders an expert's opinion on signal strength unsupported
Pa. 2002), aff’d 331 F.3d 386, 396 (3d Cir. 2003); Pennsylvania Cellular Telephone Corporation v. Zoning Hearing Board of Buck Township, 127 F. Supp. 2d 635, 642-43 (M.D.
green
June Medical Services LLC v. Kliebert (2017)
Appx. 425, 431 (6th Cir. 2006) (construing a court’s failure to explain its reason as a "de facto denial” and reviewing such a denial for abuse of discretion); Omnipoint Commc’ns Enters., L.P. v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Easttown Twp., 331 F.3d 386, 393 (3d Cir. 2003) (observing that under Pennsylvania law, a de facto exclusion exists "where an ordinance permits a use on- its face, but when applied acts to prohibit the use throughout the municipality” (internal quotation marks …
observing that under Pennsylvania law, a de facto exclusion exists "where an ordinance permits a use on- its face, but when applied acts to prohibit the use throughout the municipality” (internal quotation marks omitted)
green
June Medical Services LLC v. Kliebert (2016)
See, e.g., Khorrami v. Rolince, 539 F.3d 782, 786 (7th Cir.2008) (observing that a judicial ruling’s delay can sometimes be "so long ... that the delay becomes a de facto denial”); Morgan v. Gandalf, Ltd., 165 Fed.Appx. 425, 431 (6th Cir.2006) (construing a court's failure to explain its reason as a “de facto denial” and reviewing such a denial for abuse of discretion); Omnipoint Communc'ns Enters., L.P. v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Easttown Twp., 331 F.3d 386, 393 (3d Cir.2003)…
green
AT&T v. Sussex County Board of Adjustment. (2015)
Appellant contends that this argument is based on authority that is no longer good law. 117 Appellant contends that the Federal Communication Commission declared the so-called “one-provider rule” inconsistent with the Federal Telecommunications Act in 2009, and the invalidity of the rule has subsequently been recognized by two Third Circuit District Courts. 118 112 Reply Brief at 15. 113 Reply Brief at 15. 114 Reply Brief at 15 (citing Transcript of December 9 Meeting at 40-…
green
Global Tower, LLC v. Hamilton Township (2012)
Omnipoint Communications Enterprises, L.P. v. Zoning Hearing Board, 331 F.3d 386, 395 (3d Cir.2003) (citing Nextel West Corp. v. Unity Twp., 282 F.3d 257 , 264 n. 6 (3d Cir.2002)).
green
Liberty Towers, LLC v. Zoning Hearing Board (2010)
Enters., L.P. v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Easttown Twp., 331 F.3d 386, 398 (3d Cir.2003).
green
VOICE STREAM PCS I, LLC v. City of Hillsboro (2004)
Croix, 342 F.3d at 835 n. 7; Omnipoint Communications Enters., L.P. v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Easttown Township, 331 F.3d 386, 397-98 (3d Cir.2003); Second Generation, 313 F.3d at 631 .
green
Omnipoint Holdings, Inc. v. City of Cranston (2009)
Id.; accord Omnipoint Commc’ns Enters., L.P. v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Easttown Twp., *48 331 F.3d 386, 392 (3d Cir.2003) (on panel rehearing).
green
VoiceStream Minneapolis, Inc. v. St. Croix County (2003)
See Omnipoint Communications Enters., L.P. v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Easttown Township, 331 F.3d 386, 399-400 (3d Cir.2003); Second Generation Props., 313 F.3d at 631-32 ; Sprint Spectrum, L.P. v. Willoth, 176 F.3d 630, 643 (2d Cir.1999).
green
Cellco Partnership v. Board of Supervisors (2015)
See Omnipoint Commc’ns Enters., L.P. v. Zoning Hr’g Bd. of Easttown Twp., 331 F.3d 386, 392 (3d Cir.2003) (Dugan oversaw “drive tests in which approximately six hundred forty actual calls were made using eight cell phones of various providers” to track the number of dropped calls and instances of no service.); see also New Cingular Wireless PCS v. Zoning Hr’g Bd. of Weisenberg Twp., No. 06-2932, 2009 WL 3127756 , at *4 (E.D.Pa.
green
MacIoce v. Zoning Hearing Board (2004)
See also Omnipoint Communications Enterprises v. Zoning Hearing Board of Easttown Township, 331 F.3d 386, 394 (3rd Cir.2003), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 124 S.Ct. 1070 , 157 L.Ed.2d 894 (2004) (“[Ojmnipoint contends that Easttown Township fails to provide a 'fair share’ allowance for telecommunications uses.