Consumer LostLandmark Caseconsumer protection

Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams, 544 U.S. 113 (2005)

544 U.S. 113
Supreme Court
Decided: January 19, 2005
No. 03

Primary Holding

An individual may not enforce the limitations on local zoning authority set forth in §332(c)(7) of the Communications Act of 1934 through an action under 42 U.S.C. §1983.

View original source (justia)
AI Summary - What This Case Means For You

In the case of Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams, the Supreme Court decided that individuals cannot use a specific law (42 U.S.C. §1983) to challenge local government decisions about where to place wireless communication facilities, like cell towers. This matters because it limits the ways consumers can fight against local zoning decisions that might affect their access to wireless services. This case is relevant if you feel that your local government is unfairly blocking the installation of necessary communication infrastructure that could benefit you and your community.

AI-generated plain-language summary to help you understand this case

Facts of the Case

In the case of Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams, Mark J. Abrams, a resident of Rancho Palos Verdes, California, owned a home situated at a high elevation, which made it an ideal location for radio transmissions. In 1989, he obtained a permit to construct a 52.5-foot antenna for amateur radio use and subsequently installed it. Over the years, Abrams added several smaller tripod antennas without the City’s prior permission. He utilized these antennas for both noncommercial amateur radio services and commercial purposes, including providing two-way radio communications to customers. The dispute arose when Abrams sought permission in 1998 to build a second antenna tower, which the City of Rancho Palos Verdes denied. Abrams contended that the City’s actions were inconsistent with the limitations imposed by §332(c)(7) of the Communications Act of 1934, which restricts local governments from unreasonably discriminating against providers of wireless services and from prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services. Following the denial, Abrams filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. §1983, claiming that the City’s actions violated his rights under the federal statute. The case progressed through the courts, eventually reaching the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which ruled in favor of Abrams. The City then petitioned for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case to determine whether an individual could enforce the limitations on local zoning authority set forth in the Communications Act through a §1983 action. The Supreme Court's decision was announced on March 22, 2005.

Question Presented

Whether an individual may enforce the limitations on local zoning authority set forth in §332(c)(7) of the Communications Act of 1934 through an action under Rev. Stat. §1979, 42 U.S.C. §1983.

Conclusion

The judgment is reversed.

Quick Facts
Court
Supreme Court
Decision Date
January 19, 2005
Jurisdiction
federal
Case Type
landmark
Majority Author
Scalia
Damages Awarded
N/A
Data Quality
high
Have a Similar Situation?
Get free AI-powered legal analysis tailored to your specific case
  • AI analyzes your situation instantly
  • Find similar cases with favorable outcomes
  • Get personalized action plan

No credit card required • Takes 2 minutes

Similar Cases

Global Crossing Telecommunications, Inc. v. Metrophones Telecommunications, Inc., 550 U.S. 45 (2007)

Consumer Won
Supreme Court2006

The Federal Communications Commission's interpretation of §201(b) of the Communications Act, which requires long-distance carriers to compensate payphone operators for calls made from payphones, is a lawful application of the statute, and §207 authorizes payphone operators to bring federal lawsuits against carriers that refuse to pay such compensation.

National Cable & Telecommunications Ass'n v. Brand X Internet Services, 545 U.S. 967 (2005)

Consumer Lost
Supreme Court2005

The Federal Communications Commission's determination that cable companies providing broadband Internet service do not qualify as "telecommunications services" under Title II of the Communications Act, and thus are exempt from mandatory common-carrier regulation, is a lawful construction of the Act under the Chevron deference standard.

Sprint Communications Co. v. APCC Services, Inc., 554 U.S. 269 (2008)

Consumer Won
Supreme Court2008

An assignee of a legal claim for money owed has standing to pursue that claim in federal court, even when the assignee has promised to remit the proceeds of the litigation to the assignor.

Stoneridge Investment Partners, LLC v. Scientific-Atlanta, Inc, 552 U.S. 148 (2008)

Consumer Lost
Supreme Court2007

The Supreme Court held that investors cannot impose liability on third-party companies under §10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 if they did not rely on the statements or representations made by those companies, even if the companies engaged in deceptive practices that contributed to the misleading financial statements of the primary defendant.