Omnipoint Holdings, Inc. v. City of Cranston

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that “[a]ny feasibility analysis” must “balance[] . . . competing interests”
• concluding district court did not err in finding proposed plan was only feasible option where City’s proposed alternative sites were not feasible and City’s expert was not credible
• “Beyond the statute’s language, the TCA provides no guidance on what constitutes an effective prohibition, so courts, including [the First Circuit], have added judicial gloss.”
• “The carrier has the burden to show an effective prohibition has occurred.”
• detailed evidence of provider’s systematic search and efforts to secure sites
• “When relevant, courts assessing whether a coverage gap is significant should consider, inter alia, the physical size of the gap, the area in which there is a gap, the number of users the gap affects, and whether all of the carrier’s users in that area are similarly affected by the gaps.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).