Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-7 of 7

A whole new crop of cell tower issues in PA

Fox Rothschild LLP
-
USA
-
April 18 2012

The Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court recently upheld the grant of a dimensional variance to a farmer to build a silo tall enough to house cellular antennas

The interaction of TCA, local zoning ordinances and the courts: defining a “significant gap” in wireless service

Fox Rothschild LLP
-
USA
-
February 21 2012

The interaction of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and local zoning and land use ordinances is an area of law that continues to evolve

Tax Court, in Robert Broz, et ux. v. Commissioner, 137 T.C. No. 3 (July, 2011) rules that wireless cellular equipment and support structures were 15-year recovery period property

Fox Rothschild LLP
-
USA
-
August 22 2011

Petitioners, husband and wife, were shareholders in an S corporation which provided wireless cellular service

Northeast Pennsylvania SMSA Ltd. Partnership v. Scott Tp. Zoning Hearing Bd.,

Fox Rothschild LLP
-
USA
-
August 8 2011

In Northeast Pennsylvania SMSA Ltd. Partnership v. Scott Tp. Zoning Hearing Bd., 18 A.3d 1272 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011), decided April 18, 2011, the Commonwealth Court examined an appeal by local neighbors regarding a dimensional variance that allowed NorthEast Pennsylvania SMSA Limited Partnership (Verizon) to construct a cell phone tower near the neighbors’ properties

Judge Robinson allows EON's direct infringement claims to proceed, but dismisses its joint and indirect infringement claims

Fox Rothschild LLP
-
USA
-
July 18 2011

By Memorandum Opinion entered by the Honorable Sue L. Robinson in EON Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. FLO TV Inc., et al., Civil Action Action No. 10-812-SLR (D.Del., July 12, 2011), the Court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to dismiss the second amended complaint of plaintiff Eon Corp. IP Holdings LLC. (“EON”

Supreme Court tells AT&T it has no right to privacy

Fox Rothschild LLP
-
USA
-
March 2 2011

The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled in Federal Communications Commission, et al. v. AT&T Inc., et al. that business entities have no personal privacy rights under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA

Supreme Court refuses to make landmark privacy ruling

Fox Rothschild LLP
-
USA
-
June 18 2010

The Supreme Court issued a ruling yesterday (8-1) in Ontario, Calif. v. Quon, U.S., No. 08-1332, 61710, basically punting on elaborating on Fourth Amendment privacy rights because technology is still emerging

Search results

A whole new crop of cell tower issues in PA

The interaction of TCA, local zoning ordinances and the courts: defining a “significant gap” in wireless service

Tax Court, in Robert Broz, et ux. v. Commissioner, 137 T.C. No. 3 (July, 2011) rules that wireless cellular equipment and support structures were 15-year recovery period property

Northeast Pennsylvania SMSA Ltd. Partnership v. Scott Tp. Zoning Hearing Bd.,

Judge Robinson allows EON's direct infringement claims to proceed, but dismisses its joint and indirect infringement claims

Supreme Court tells AT&T it has no right to privacy

Supreme Court refuses to make landmark privacy ruling

Current Search

Suggested Facets

Author

Workarea