47 U.S.C. § 32
Application
The provisions of this chapter shall be held to apply only to cables to which the convention for the time being applies.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1991–2024 · leading case: Am. Tel. & Tel. Co. v. M/V Cape Fear, 967 F.2d 864 (3rd Cir. 1992).
Am. Tel. & Tel. Co. v. M/V Cape Fear, 967 F.2d 864 (3rd Cir. 1992). “cables to which the [International Convention for the Protection of Submarine Cables] for the time being applies,” 47 U.S.C. § 32 (1988), would seem to apply if (1) the cable is “landed” as outlined in the Cable Convention and (2) the "infraction" occurred within the Cable Act’s…”
Am. Tel. & Tel. Co. v. M/V Cape Fear, 763 F. Supp. 97 (D.N.J. 1991). “47 U.S.C. § 32 ; Cable Convention, Article 1.”
Helcher v. Dearborn Cnty., 500 F. Supp. 2d 1100 (S.D. Ind. 2007). “The Requirement that the Board May Not Unreasonably Discriminate Among Wireless Service Providers Plaintiffs next contend that the Board’s decision unreasonably discriminated against Cincinnati Bell in comparison to other wireless service providers, in violation of 47 U.S.C. §…”
GTE Mobilnet of California Ltd. P'ship v. City of Berkeley (N.D. Cal. 2024). “The FAC states three claims for relief: 1) failure to act on the Application “within a 3 reasonable period of time” after it was filed, in violation of 47 U.S.C. § 32 (c)(7)(B)(ii) (the 4 “failure-to-act claim”); 2) denial not based on substantial evidence in violation of 47 U.”
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.