Steven Bastien v. At&t Wireless 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 an action brought under state law to challenge the number of base stations in a coverage area constitutes a barrier to entry and is prohibited by § 332(c)(3)(A)
• holding the Savings clause does not “abrogate the very federal regulation of mobile telephone providers that the act intended to create” (citation omitted)
• reasoning that Congress intended complete preemption where it expressly said that “ no State or local government shall have any authority to regulate the entry of or the rates charged by any commercial mobile service.”
• viewing the Communication Act’s preemption clause as a bar to state-law claims challenging “the rates and level of service offered by” mobile carriers
• finding removal jurisdiction over state-law claims based on complete preemption under a section of the Federal Communications Act
• “[I]n some instances, Congress has so completely preempted a particular area that ... removal is proper despite the well-pleaded complaint rule.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).