U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 1994

Pacific Telesis Group v. United States

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Decided December 30, 1994 · Alarcon, Hall, King

48 F.3d 1106; 1994 WL 719063 (Federal Reporter, Third Series)

Counsel

Michael K. Kellogg, Kellogg, Huber, Hansen & Todd, Washington, DC, for plaintiffs-appellants., Douglas Letter, U.S. Dept, of Justice, Washington, DC, for defendants-appellees., Bruce D. Solder, Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, Washington, DC, for intervenor-appellee.

Cases that cite this one

2 later published cases cite this decision.

Southern New England Telephone Co. v. United States (United States District Court for the District of Connecticut 1995)
Pacific Telesis Group v. United States (9th Cir. 1994)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

CYNTHIA HOLCOMB HALL, Circuit Judge:

This case involves a First Amendment challenge to 47 U.S.C. § 533(b), the telephone company — cable television cross-ownership prohibition. The district court stayed the proceedings pending resolution by this court of GTE California, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, 39 F.3d 940 (9th Cir. 1994). After the stay was entered, the plaintiffs moved in the district court for a preliminary injunction against enforcement of § 533(b) pending resolution of this case. The district court summarily denied the application for a preliminary injunction, and this interlocutory appeal followed.

US West, Inc. v. United States, 48 F.3d 1092 (9th Cir. 1994), raised the same First Amendment issue as the present case, and we consolidated the two eases for purposes of oral argument. In a separate published opinion in US West, filed along with this disposition, we hold that § 533(b) violates the First Amendment.

The district court’s order denying preliminary injunctive relief is therefore REVERSED and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion and with the opinion in US West.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.