Brown v. MCI WorldCom Network Services, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that the filed rate doctrine did not preclude the plaintiff’s antitrust claim since the tariff at issue did not authorize an additional fee that defendants had charged him

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

4 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Pacificorp v. Northwest Pipeline GP
  D. Oregon· 2012-07-16· cited 15×
• Gallivan v. AT & T CORP.
  California Court of Appeal· 2004-12-15· cited 9×
• Muller v. Winnebago Industries, Inc.
  D. Arizona· 2004-05-14· cited 4×
• William J. Brown, Iii v. Mci Worldcom Network Services, Inc.
  Ninth Circuit· 2002-01-17

Cites

11 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Reiter v. Cooper
  Supreme Court· 1993-03-08· cited 660×
• MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co.
  Supreme Court· 1994-06-17· cited 584×
• American Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Central Office Telephone, Inc.
  Supreme Court· 1998-06-15· cited 376×
• Arizona Grocery Co. v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.
  Supreme Court· 1932-01-11· cited 360×
• Lowden v. Simonds-Shields-Lonsdale Grain Co.
  Supreme Court· 1939-04-03· cited 118×
• National Communications Association, Inc. v. American Telephone and Telegraph Company
  Second Circuit· 1995-01-30· cited 115×
• Suzanne Cahnmann, on Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Sprint Corporation
  Seventh Circuit· 1998-01-07· cited 104×
• Lovejoy v. AT&T CORP.
  California Court of Appeal· 2001-10-05· cited 63×
• United States v. General Dynamics Corp.
  Ninth Circuit· 1987-04-02· cited 59×
• Allnet Communication Service, Inc. v. National Exchange Carrier Association, Inc., a Delaware Corporation
  D.C. Circuit· 1992-06-09· cited 53×
• MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. John Mezzalingua Associates, Inc.
  N.D. New York· 1996-04-10· cited 7×