TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

American Telephone and Telegraph Company v. The United States

AMERICAN TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. the UNITED STATES, Defendant/Cross-Appellant

Am. Tel. & Tel. Co. v. The United States, 136 F.3d 793 (Fed. Cir. 1998)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
March 9, 1998
Docket
Nos. 95-5153, 95-5154
Citations
136 F.3d 79340 Fed. Cl. 7931998 WL 1001191998 U.S. App. LEXIS 5325

Opinion

ORDER A combined petition for rehearing and suggestion for rehearing in bane having been filed by the appellant, and a response thereto having been invited by the court and filed by the cross appellant, and amicus having been granted leave to file a brief in support of the appellant’s combined petition for rehearing and suggestion for rehearing in banc, and the petition for rehearing having been referred to and acted upon by the panel that heard the appeal, and, thereafter, the suggestion for rehearing in banc having been referred to the judges in regular active service to determine whether the appeal should be reheard in banc, and a poll having been requested, it is ORDERED that the petition for rehearing is denied, and it is further ORDERED that the suggestion to rehear the appeal in banc is accepted; the judgment of the court entered on September 24, 1997, and reported at 124 F.3d 1471 , is vacated; and the opinion of the court accompanying the judgment is withdrawn;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that new briefs shall be filed. Appellant’s principal brief is due within 60 days of the date of filing of this order. The court sua sponte allows the amicus to file a brief at the time. The dates for filing the remaining briefs shall be in accordance with Fed. Cir. R. 31(a). An original and 30 copies of all briefs shall be filed and two copies shall be served on opposing counsel.

Oral argument will be scheduled by later order.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 10 cases

View all citing references →
1998: 21999: 32003: 22008: 12014: 219982026peak 1999 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. PCL Construction Services, Inc. v. United States41 Fed. Cl. 242 (Fed. Cl. 1998)
  2. American Telephone and Telegraph Company, and Lucent Technologies Inc., United States177 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 1999)
  3. Enron Federal Solutions, Inc. v. United States80 Fed. Cl. 382 (Fed. Cl. 2008)
  4. Hermes Consolidated, Inc. v. United States58 Fed. Cl. 3 (Fed. Cl. 2003)
  5. Frank & Breslow, LLP v. United States43 Fed. Cl. 65 (Fed. Cl. 1999)
  6. Threshold Technologies, Inc. v. United States117 Fed. Cl. 681 (Fed. Cl. 2014)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Am. Tel. & Tel. Co. v. The United States, 124 F.3d 1471 (Fed. Cir. 1997) 23

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list