Iowa Utilities Bd. v. F.C.C.
| Decision Date | 27 September 1996 |
| Docket Number | 96-3406,Nos. 96-3321,96-3416,96-3450,96-3414,96-3453,96-3460,96-3418,96-3444,96-3436,96-3519 and 96-3520,96-3410,96-3424,96-3430,96-3507,s. 96-3321 |
| Citation | 96 F.3d 1116 |
| Parties | IOWA UTILITIES BOARD, Petitioner, v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; United States of America,Respondents. NATIONALASSOCIATION OF REGULATORY UTILITY COMMISSIONERS, Petitioner, v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; United States of America,Respondents. The SOUTHERN NEW ENGLAND TELEPHONE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; United States of America,Respondents, BELL ATLANTIC CORPORATION; Bellsouth Corporation; Pacific Telesis Group, Petitioners, v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; United States of America,Respondents. AMERITECH CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; United States of America,Respondents. US WEST,INC., Petitioner, v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; United States of America,Respondents. GTE SERVICE CORPORATION; GTE Alaska, Incorporated; GTE Arkansas, Incorporated; GTE California, Incorporated; GTE Florida,Incorporated; GTE Midwest, Incorporated; GTE South, Incorporated; GTE Southwest, Incorporated; GTE North, Incorporated; GTE Northwest, Incorporated; GTE HawaiianTelephone Company, Incorporated; GTE West Coast, Incorporated; Contel of California, Inc.; Contel of Minnesota, Inc.; Contel of the South, Inc., Petitioners, v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; United States of America,Respondents. NEW YORKTELEPHONE COMPANY; New England Telephone and Telegraph Company, Petitioners, v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; United States of America,Respondents. CINCINNATI BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; United States of America,Respondents. PEOPLE of the STATE of NEW YORK; The Public Service Commission of the State of New York, Petitioners, v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; United States of America,Respondents. SBC COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Petitioner, v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; United States of America,Respondents. LOUISIANA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Petitioner, v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; United States of America,Respondents. FLORIDA PUBLIC SERVIC |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Before BOWMAN, WOLLMAN, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.
These matters pend on resisted motions for stay pending judicial review of the Federal Communications Commission's First Report and Order of August 8, 1996, Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket No. 96-98. The court has carefully reviewed the motion papers filed in support of the requested stay, and in opposition thereto, and has determined that oral argument should be heard on the motions. For the purposes of argument on the stay issues, the court has grouped the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
5 cases
-
Bell Atlantic-Delaware, Inc. v. McMahon
...Fed. Reg. 45,476 (1996), but on September 27, 1996 the Eighth Circuit temporarily stayed their effective date. See Iowa Utils. Bd. v. FCC, 96 F.3d 1116, 1118 (8th Cir.1996). Although the Eighth Circuit eventually lifted its stay with respect to some of these regulations, it continued to sta......
-
Mci Telecommunications Corp. v. Gte Northwest
...27, 1996, the Eighth Circuit temporarily stayed "the effective date" of all of the regulations. Iowa Util. Bd. v. Federal Communications Comm'n, 96 F.3d 1116, 1118 (8th Cir.1996). On October 15, 1996, the Eighth Circuit allowed some of the regulations to go into effect, but continued to sta......
-
GTE S. v. Morrison
...the FCC's rules were scheduled to go into effect, the Eighth Circuit entered a temporary stay of the rules, see Iowa Utils. Bd. v. FCC, 96 F.3d 1116, 1118 (8th Cir. 1996), and later entered a stay of the pricing rules pending final decision, see Iowa Utils. Bd. v. FCC, 109 F.3d 418, 427 (8t......
-
Us West Communications v. At & T Communications
...stayed those regulations (with limited exceptions) before they ever went into effect, postponing their effective date. See Iowa Utilities, 96 F.3d at 1118 (staying "effective date"). See also 5 U.S.C. § 705 (expressly authorizing reviewing court to "postpone the effective date of an agency ......
Request a trial to view additional results