47 C.F.R. § 24.52

[Reserved]

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 2003–2008 · leading case: Pinney v. Nokia, Inc., 402 F.3d 430 (4th Cir. 2005).
Pinney v. Nokia, Inc., 402 F.3d 430 (4th Cir. 2005). · cites it 2× “See 47 C.F.R. § 24.52 . Nevertheless, a wireless service provider’s choice to bundle service packages and telephones does not mean that a headset requirement would affect its ability to enter into the wireless service market or to provide a network of wireless ser- vice coverage.”
In Re Wireless Tel. Radio Frequency Emissions Prods. Liab. Litig., 248 F. Supp. 2d 452 (D. Maryland 2003). “51 (2003); "RF hazards," 47 C.F.R. § 24.52 (2003). The regulation most pertinent to the present discussion is the RF emissions standard for portable devices, expressed in terms of specific absorption rate ("SAR").”
Farina v. Nokia, 578 F. Supp. 2d 740 (E.D. Pa. 2008). “” 47 C.F.R. § 24.52 (1996).... Plaintiff effectively creates a barrier to entry into the market by extending this lawsuit to “the entire system(s) used to transmit voice and/or data transmissions from and/or to the cell phone.”
Pinney v. Nokia, Inc., 248 F. Supp. 2d 452 (D. Maryland 2003). “51 (2003); “RF hazards,” 47 C.F.R. § 24.52 (2003). The regulation most pertinent to the present discussion is the RF emissions standard for portable devices, expressed in terms of specific absorption rate (“SAR”).”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.