United States Sixth Circuit

A state administrative ruling requiring an incumbent local exchange carrier to provide reciprocal compensation to competing carriers did not violate the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and interpretation of interconnection agreements was neither arbitrary nor capricious.

Appellate Information

• Decided 05/20/2003
• Published 05/20/2003

Judges

• Before DAUGHTREY and MOORE, Circuit Judges;  CARR, District Judge.

Court

• United States Sixth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Robert M. Dow, Jr. (briefed), John E. Muench (briefed), Theodore A. Livingston (argued and briefed), Demetrios G. Metropoulos (briefed), Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw, Chicago, IL, Jeffery V. Stuckey (briefed), John M. Dempsey (briefed), Dickinson, Wright, Lansing, MI, Michael A. Holmes (briefed), Detroit, MI, for Plaintiff-Appellant.


• For Appellees:
  
• John Hamill, Jenner & Block, Chicago, IL, John R. Harrington (briefed), Darryl M. Bradford (argued and briefed), Jenner & Block, Chicago, IL, Arthur J. LeVasseur (briefed), Fischer, Franklin & Ford, Detroit, MI, Richard Gould, Grandville, MI, William Reid Ralls, Leland R. Rosier, Clark Hill, Okemos, MI, David A. Voges (briefed), Asst. Atty. Gen., Henry J. Boynton (briefed), Asst. Atty. Gen., Michael A. Nickerson (argued and briefed), Office of the Attorney General, Lansing, MI, David M. Gadaleto, Michigan Atty. Gen., Lansing MI, for Defendants-Appellees.