Covad Communications Co. v. Federal Communications Commission

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that the agency “need not address every comment, but it must respond in a reasoned manner to those that raise significant problems.” (quoting Reytblatt v. Nuclear Regul. Comm’n, 105 F.3d 715, 722 (D.C. Cir. 1997))
• attempting to “incorporate by reference” other arguments is “insufficient to raise the issue”
• “The failure to respond to comments is significant only insofar as it demonstrates that the agency’s decision was not based on a consideration of the relevant factors.”
• “[W]hen the [FCC] is obligated to consider certain factors, that means only that the FCC must reach an express and considered con- clusion about the bearing of a factor, but is not required to give any spe- cifc weight to it” (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted)
• “[T]he Commission’s fourth try is a charm.”
• describing history of invalidated FCC unbundling orders

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).