47 U.S.C. § 414
Exclusiveness of chapter
Nothing in this chapter contained shall in any way abridge or alter the remedies now existing at common law or by statute, but the provisions of this chapter are in addition to such remedies.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 134
cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1937–2026 · leading case: Rush Prudential HMO, Inc. v. Moran, 536 U.S. 355 (2002).
Rush Prudential HMO, Inc. v. Moran, 536 U.S. 355 (2002). “214, 227 (1998) (AT&T) (clause in Communications Act of 1934 purporting to save "the remedies now existing at common law or by statute," 47 U. S. C. § 414 (1994 ed.), defeated by overriding policy of the filed-rate doctrine); Adams Express Co.”
Firstcom, Inc. v. Qwest Corp., 555 F.3d 669 (8th Cir. 2009). “” 47 U.S.C. § 414 (emphasis added). Therefore, section 414 “merely preserves existing state-law remedies” and does not create state law remedies for breaches of duties imposed by the Act.”
Farina v. Nokia, Inc., 625 F.3d 97 (3rd Cir. 2010). “§ 152 ) (stating that the TCA “shall not be construed to modify, impair, or supersede Federal, State, or local law unless expressly so provided”); 47 U.S.C. § 414 (“Nothing in this chapter contained shall in any way abridge or alter the remedies now existing at common law or by…”
Am. Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Cent. Off. Tel., Inc., 524 U.S. 214 (1998). “" 47 U. S. C. § 414 . [4] Beyond the billing disclosures and slamming, respondent asserts that AT&T also misappropriated customer information from respondent's confidential data base.”
TPS Utilicom Servs., Inc. v. AT & T CORP., 223 F. Supp. 2d 1089 (C.D. Cal. 2002). “” 47 U.S.C. § 414 . 2. The character of § 332(c)(3)(A) preemption.”
Pinney v. Nokia, Inc., 402 F.3d 430 (4th Cir. 2005). “" 47 U.S.C. § 414 . The presence of a sav- ings clause counsels against a finding that Congress intended to sweep aside all state claims in a particular area.”
Lovejoy v. AT&T CORP., 111 Cal. Rptr. 2d 711 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001). “’ ( 47 U.S.C. § 414 .) This clause has been interpreted as ‘preserv[ing] .”
Tenore v. AT&T Wireless Servs., 962 P.2d 104 (Wash. 1998). “67 47 U.S.C. § 414 provides: Nothing in the chapter .”
DeCastro v. AWACS, Inc., 935 F. Supp. 541 (D.N.J. 1996). “47 U.S.C. § 414 . No such savings clause is found in the preemptive provisions of the LMRA and ERISA Many courts have relied upon this savings clause to find that Congress intended to preserve state law claims for breaches of duties which are distinguishable from duties created…”
Teleprompter Corp. v. Columbia Broad. Sys., Inc., 415 U.S. 394 (1974). “" 47 U. S. C. § 414 . Moreover, the Federal Communications Commission has realized that it can "neither resolve, nor avoid" the problem under the Copyright Act, when it comes to CATV.”
Telesaurus Vpc, LLC v. Power, 623 F.3d 998 (9th Cir. 2010). “Telesaurus argues that even if a court’s adjudication of its tort claims would require reconsideration of the FCC’s licensing determination, its state tort claims are saved from preemption under 47 U.S.C. § 414 , the FCA’s savings clause.”
In Re Long Distance Telecomm. Litig.. Charles Kaplan v. itt-u.s. Transmission Sys., Inc., Roger Lee v. W. Union Tel. Co., 831 F.2d 627 (6th Cir. 1987). “The district court also held that the “savings clause” in the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. § 414 , is inapplicable since the complaint “effectively challenges practices expressly and exclusively regulated .”
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.