Source: http://www.lawmoss.com/anthony-a-dorland/tower-law-update/
Timestamp: 2019-02-18 22:12:57
Document Index: 433133723

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 332', '§332', '§332', '§332', '§332', 'ART 14', '§ 332']

Recent Blog Posts | Anthony A. Dorland
Anthony A. Dorland, Attorney
612-877-5258
http://towerlawupdate.blogspot.com/
Tony Dorland is pleased to present the blog series, Tower Law Update. Tony summarizes recent judicial cases related to the zoning, leasing, and operation of wireless antennas, towers, and facilities.
Federal District Court decides that certain wireless right-of-way installations are not subject to City's zoning regulations pursuant to City contract or Virginia state law. CROWN CASTLE NG ATLANTIC LLC v. CITY OF NEWPORT NEWS, United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, CIVIL NO. 4:15CV93.In a case that has been appealed to the 4th Circuit, the District Court found that the City’s Franchise Agreement with Crown Castle does not subject Crown Castle to the City’s zoning ordinance or zoning approval. The District Court held that the City’s actions to require Crown Castle to comply with the zoning ordinance and either remove its equipment, comply with conditions... More
10th Circuit holds that the lack of reliable in-building or in-vehicle service is a legitimate consideration in determining whether a coverage gap is significant. AT&amp;T MOBILITY SERVICES, LLC, v. VILLAGE OF CORRALES (10th Cir., March 8, 2016). When the Village of Corrales denied AT&T a special permit to construct a 65-foot tall cell phone tower, AT&T filed suit, asserting (among other things) that the Village's denial amounted to an effective prohibition of personal wireless services in violation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (TCA). The district court agreed, granted summary judgment in favor of AT&T, and ordered the Village to approve the necessary permits. The Village appealed, and the 10th Circuit affirmed. Read more »... More
City’s denial of zoning permit for free-standing bell tower on Church property violated Telecommunications Act of 1996. CELLULAR SOUTH REAL ESTATE, INC. d/b/a CELLULAR SOUTH v. CITY OF GERMANTOWN, (UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE, June 22, 2015). The issues before the Court were as follows: (a) whether the decision to deny Cellular South's Application was not supported by "substantial evidence contained in a written record," in accordance with 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iii), and (b) whether the Board's denial of Cellular South's application effectively prohibited the provision of personal wireless services in violation of... More
Smith Communications, LLC v. Washington County, Arkansas (8th Circuit, May 12, 2015) In Smith Communications, LLC v. Washington County, Arkansas (8th Circuit, May 12, 2015), the Court held that a locality may rely on detailed meeting minutes to provide its written reasons for denial so long as the locality's reasons are stated clearly enough to enable judicial review, citing the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in T-Mobile S., LLC v. City of Roswell, Ga., 135 S. Ct. 808, 816 (2015). Read more »... More
US Supreme Court decides T-MOBILE SOUTH, LLC v. CITY OF ROSWELL (January 14, 2015) In its decision the US Supreme Court held that it would be considerably difficult for a reviewing court to determine whether a locality’s denial was “supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record,” §332(c)(7)(B)(iii), or whether a locality had “unreasonably discriminate[d] among providers of functionally equivalent services,” §332(c)(7)(B)(i)(I), or regulated siting “on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions,” §332(c)(7)(B)(iv), if localities were not obligated to state their reasons for denial. Read more »... More
FCC issues Final Rule Regarding Acceleration of Broadband Deployment by Improving Wireless Facilities Siting Policies (January 8, 2015) As stated in the Final Rule published in the Federal Register on January 8, 2015, the “Federal Communications Commission (Commission) adopts rules to update and tailor the manner in which it evaluates the impact of proposed deployments of wireless infrastructure on the environment and historic properties. The Commission also adopts rules to clarify and implement statutory requirements applicable to State and local governments in their review of wireless infrastructure siting applications, and it adopts an exemption from its environmental public... More
8th Circuit rules on &quot;in writing&quot; requirement of Telecommunications Act of 1996 (TCA) NE Colorado Cellular, Inc. v. City of North Platte, Nebraska (8th Cir. August 22, 2014). As outlined by the 8th Circuit, the TCA provides in relevant part: "A State or local government or instrumentality thereof shall act on any request for authorization to place, construct, or modify personal wireless service facilities within a reasonable period of time after the request is duly filed with such government or instrumentality, taking into account the nature and scope of such request.""Any... More
Tower owner enjoined from declaring wireless provider in breach of the parties' lease and taking any action to cause the removal of the wireless provider’s equipment on the tower. United States Cellular Operating Company of Medford v. Western Radio Services Co., UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION (June 11, 2013).The following are excerpts from the Court's Opinion and Order (citations omitted):Western Radio Services Co. ("Western Radio" or "Defendant") leases land on Walker Mountain from the U.S. Forest Service ("Forest Service" or "Plaintiff") on which Western Radio maintains a communications tower, a support building, and a generator pad (collectively, "Original Tower"). Beginning in August 2010,... More
FCC’s Shot Clock Rule Upheld CITY OF ARLINGTON, TEXAS, ET AL. v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ET AL. (U.S. Supreme Court, May 20, 2013).The Supreme Court stated that 47 U. S. C. §332(c)(7)(B)(ii) requires state and local zoning authorities to take prompt action on siting applications for wireless facilities (“within a reasonable period of time after the request is duly filed”). But in practice, the Court stated that wireless providers often faced long delays. The Court upheld the FCC’s authority to determine that a “reasonable period... More
FCC Guidance on Intepretation of Section 6409(a) THE FCC's WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS BUREAU OFFERS GUIDANCE ON INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 6409(a) OF THE MIDDLE CLASS TAX RELIEF AND JOB CREATION ACT OF 2012 (January 25, 2013).Read more »... More
Wireless provider not liable for breach of contract for terminating lease prior to obtaining building permit. Lighthouse 925 Hempstead, LLC v. Sprint Spectrum L.P., SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NASSAU TRIAL/IAS PART 14 (April 17, 2012). This case involves lease commencement language that is commonly used in wireless facility leases. The following are excerpts from the Court’s order (citations omitted). Read more »... More
Village's Denial of Special Use Permit and Variance to Construct a Cell Tower Upheld. SBA Towers II LLC v. Village of Huntley (United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois, April 24, 2012). The following are excerpts from the Court's decision: Plaintiff, SBA Towers II, LLC, brings this action against defendant, Village of Huntley alleging violation of 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iii). This provision of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 ("Act") requires that "[a]ny decision by a State or local government or instrumentality thereof to deny a request to place, construct, or modify personal wireless service... More
Apartment residents' claims of personal and property injury related to rooftop wireless antenna transmissions are preempted by Telecommunications Act of 1996. Stanley v. Amalithone Realty, Inc. (New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, March 13, 2012). On March 16, 2010, plaintiffs, residents of an apartment building in Manhattan, filed a complaint pleading numerous causes of action, including claims for nuisance, trespass and an unlawful taking. In their prayer for relief, plaintiffs sought a permanent injunction requiring the removal of all rooftop cell transmission antennas; damages for personal and property injury; punitive damages; and a declaratory judgment that they were entitled not to... More
Section 6409 (Wireless Facilities Deployment) of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, signed on February 22, 2012. SEC. 6409. WIRELESS FACILITIES DEPLOYMENT.(a) FACILITY MODIFICATIONS.Read more »... More
Fifth Circuit Upholds FCC's Shot Clock Order City of Arlington, Texas v. FCC (5th Circuit, January 23, 2012).Read more »... More