47 U.S.C. § 406

Compelling furnishing of facilities; mandamus; jurisdiction

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 47 CasesGoogle Scholar

The district courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction upon the relation of any person alleging any violation, by a carrier subject to this chapter, of any of the provisions of this chapter which prevent the relator from receiving service in interstate or foreign communication by wire or radio, or in interstate or foreign transmission of energy by radio, from said carrier at the same charges, or upon terms or conditions as favorable as those given by said carrier for like communication or transmission under similar conditions to any other person, to issue a writ or writs of mandamus against said carrier commanding such carrier to furnish facilities for such communication or transmission to the party applying for the writ: Provided, That if any question of fact as to the proper compensation to the carrier for the service to be enforced by the writ is raised by the pleadings, the writ of peremptory mandamus may issue, notwithstanding such question of fact is undetermined, upon such terms as to security, payment of money into the court, or otherwise, as the court may think proper pending the determination of the question of fact: Provided further, That the remedy given by writ of mandamus shall be cumulative and shall not be held to exclude or interfere with other remedies provided by this chapter.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 19 cases, 1938–2012 · leading case: Mical Communications, Inc. v. Sprint Telemedia, Inc.

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Mical Communications, Inc. v. Sprint Telemedia, Inc. (1993) ca10 · cites it 4× “Mical relies on 47 U.S.C. § 406 for its claim to injunctive relief.”

MCI Communications Corporation v. American Telephone & Telegraph Company and the Bell Telephone Company of Pennsylvania (1974) ca3 · cites it 2× “This appeal challenges a December 31, 1973, district court order granting a mandatory preliminary injunction in the nature of mandamus, pursuant to 47 U. S.C. § 406, 1 ordering defendants to provide plaintiffs with four specific types of interconnection services 2 and “such *216…”

United States v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co. (1978) dcd “47 U.S.C. § 406 . 34 More importantly, the regulatory charter of the Commission itself, while broad in many respects, is at the same time relatively weak.”

Global Crossing Telecommunications, Inc. v. CCT Communications, Inc. (In Re CCT Communications, Inc.) (2011) nysb “Count IV alleged that Global Crossing’s blocking, throttling and/or choking of traffic, and its refusal to furnish service upon reasonable request, also violated 47 U.S.C. § 406 . This section grants the district court jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus compelling a common…”

Southern Pacific Communications Co. v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co. (1983) dcd “SPCC’s reliance on the testimony of Mr. Miller is similarly misplaced.”

MCI Communications Corp. v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co. (1974) paed · cites it 3× “Plaintiffs claim that this Court has jurisdiction under § 406 of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. § 406 . 40. Section 406 requires, inter alia, that a common carrier’s violation of a provision of the Communications Act prevents plaintiff from receiving similar…”

McBride v. Western Union Tel. Co. (1949) ca9 · cites it 2× “McBride claims he is entitled to maintain his action under 47 U.S.C. § 406 , 47 U.S.C.A. § 406 , providing: “The district courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction upon the relation of any person alleging any violation, by a carrier subject to this chapter, of any of…”

Conboy v. at & T Corp. (2000) nysd “" 47 U.S.C. § 406 . In addition to these enforcement provisions, Section 227 of the Telecommunications Act, governing restrictions on the use of telephone equipment, provides for a private right *503 of action to seek injunctive relief in state court, see 47 U.”

Conboy v. AT & T Corp. (2001) ca2 “, 47 U.S.C. § 406 (providing for private injunctive relief where a party is prevented from “receiving service in interstate or foreign communication by wire or radio”); id.”

LSSI Data Corp. v. Time Warner Cable, Inc. (2012) nysd “The Complaint seeks a writ of mandamus, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 406 , compelling TWC to turn over its DA data.”

McIntire v. Wm. Penn Broadcasting Co. of Philadelphia (1945) ca3 “” 3 The original complaint filed by the plaintiffs asserted that jurisdiction lay in the District Court under Section 406 of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C.A. § 406 . Upon it becoming apparent that the defendant was not a “common carrier” as defined in Section 4(h), 4…”

Northern Valley Communications, LLC v. Sprint Communications Co. (2009) sdd “3d at 255 (citing 47 U.S.C. § 406 (providing for private injunctive relief where party is prevented from receiving service by wire or radio); 47 U.”

Show all 19 citing cases →

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.