- On September 9, 2010, the US District Court for the District of New Hampshire granted summary judgment in favor of AT&T and against the Town of Greenfield and its Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) in a case in which AT&T challenged the denial of its application for an area variance to install a 100-foot cell tower in a residential area. The court found in favor of AT&T because the “ZBA’s public-interest determination relies on circular reasoning and fails to recognize that enhanced cellular telephone service and co-location are decidedly in the public interest.” The court concluded that, “[c]areful review of the record ... demonstrates that the ZBA’s determinations either fail to satisfy the written-decision requirement, or are not supported by an adequate quantum of evidence,” and that the “fundamental problem with the ZBA’s decision is that it fails to put the correct evidence on the proper scales in the first instance.” The court ordered the ZBA to “promptly authorize construction of the subject tower as proposed.” New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC v. Town of Greenfield, No. 09-cv-399-SM (D.N.H.)
- On September 2, 2010, the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted summary judgment in favor of defendant Peerless Network and related defendants against plaintiff Neutral Tandem in a patent-infringement and antitrust case, and invalidated Neutral Tandem’s local transit traffic patent in the process. The court ruled for Peerless on the ground that the challenged services were already provided (by Focal and INS, among others) before Neutral Tandem filed its patent, and that an earlier patent had disclosed the terms of Neutral Tandem’s patent, rendering the patent invalid as a matter of law. Neutral Tandem, Inc. v. Peerless Network, LLC, No. 08 C 3402 (N.D. Ill.).
Register Now As you are not an existing subscriber please register for your free daily legal newsfeed service.Register
If you have any questions about the service please contact email@example.com or call Lexology Customer Services on +44 20 7234 0606.
In the courts
- Arent Fox LLP
- Ross A. Buntrock , Jonathan E. Canis , Alan G. Fishel , Michael B. Hazzard , Stephanie A. Joyce and Jeffrey E. Rummel
- September 20 2010
If you are interested in submitting an article to Lexology, please contact Andrew Teague at firstname.lastname@example.org.
"Lexology is a good barometer of a firm's expertise as the articles showcase a firm's understanding of the issues involved and how up to date their knowledge is. It's a good one stop solution where one is able...
"Lexology is a good barometer of a firm's expertise as the articles showcase a firm's understanding of the issues involved and how up to date their knowledge is. It's a good one stop solution where one is able to view the same law/cases from different perspectives; on the whole I would rate Lexology as a good service."
How Yee Loh