§Why CasetextPricing

United States of America v. SBC Communications Inc. et al

RESPONSE to Verizon's Opposition to Motions of the New Jersey Division of Rate Counsel and National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates to Intervene

6 Cited authorities

  1. Verizon Comm. v. Law Offices of Trinko

    540 U.S. 398 (2004)   Cited 506 times   54 Legal Analyses
    Holding even a monopolist has no duty to cooperate with rivals

  2. United States Telecom Ass'n v. F.C.C

    359 F.3d 554 (D.C. Cir. 2004)   Cited 146 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding unlawful an agency's subdelegation to third parties, which directed them to make determinations on behalf of the agency

  3. Covad Communications Co. v. F.C.C

    450 F.3d 528 (D.C. Cir. 2006)   Cited 67 times
    Summarizing the 10-year-long regulatory struggle between the ILECs and CLECs

  4. Massachusetts v. Microsoft Corp.

    373 F.3d 1199 (D.C. Cir. 2004)   Cited 41 times
    Discussing W.T. Grant Co. , 345 U.S. at 635–36, 73 S.Ct. 894

  5. Massachusetts School of Law v. U.S.

    118 F.3d 776 (D.C. Cir. 1997)   Cited 32 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Noting "the existence of district court discretion over the timeliness and adequacy of representation issues under Rule 24"

  6. U.S. v. Microsoft Corporation

    Civil Action No. 98-1232 (CKK) (D.D.C. Feb. 28, 2002)   Cited 8 times

    Civil Action No. 98-1232 (CKK) February 28, 2002 MEMORANDUM OPINION COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY, United States District Judge. Before the Court is a motion to intervene, or in the alternative, for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae, brought by the "California plaintiffs." Mot. to Intervene at 1. Proposed intervenors identify themselves as "the 13 million plaintiffs in the certified indirect purchaser class action pending against Microsoft in California Superior Court." Id. at 1. The California plaintiffs