|
''Sprint Communications, Inc. v. Jacobs'', , was a decision by the United States Supreme Court in which a unanimous Court held that federal court abstention under the ''Younger v. Harris'' doctrine is not in order simply because a pending state-court proceeding involves the same subject matter.〔(''Sprint Communications Co. v. Jacobs'' ), 〕 The case involved a dispute between Sprint Corporation and Windstream Communications.〔(The Oyez Project: ''Sprint Communications Co v. Jacobs'' )〕〔(SCOTUSblog: Sprint Communications Company v. Jacobs )〕 ==Background== Sprint Corporation had paid Windstream Communications for certain long-distance calls from Sprint customers to Windstream customers in Iowa. In 2009, Sprint withheld payment for VoIP calls after concluding that the Telecommunications Act of 1996 pre-empted intrastate regulation of VoIP traffic. Windstream then threatened to block all calls to and from Sprint customers. In January 2010, Sprint filed a complaint with the Iowa Utilities Board requesting a declaration that it was proper to withhold VoIP access charges.〔(Iowa Utilities Board: Sprint vs. Iowa Telecom. Complaint and Request for Emergency Relief )〕 Though Sprint settled the dispute with Windstream and withdrew the complaint, the board continued the proceeding so that it could decide the underlying issue of VoIP classification under federal law. In February 2011, IUB issued an order with its own interpretation of VoIP’s classification under federal law along with a determination that Sprint was liable to Windstream for the access charges.〔(Iowa Utilities Board: Sprint vs. Iowa Telecom. Order )〕 Sprint then filed suit against the board in both federal district court (seeking a declaration that the Telecommunications Act preempted the board's decision and seeking an injunction against enforcement) and state court (reiterating the preemption argument, and asserting state law and procedural due process claims). The federal district court dismissed the case because of the pending state suit and ruled that the ''Younger'' abstention applied.〔(Sprint v. IUB 4:11-cv-00183-JAJ )〕 On appeal, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the abstention, vacated the dismissal, and remanded the case to the district court and ordered it enter a stay during the pendency of the state-court proceedings.〔(Sprint Communications Co. v. Elizabeth S. Jacobs ), 690 F. 3d 864 (8th Cir. 2012)〕 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Sprint Communications, Inc. v. Jacobs」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|