Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ recent decision in City of Portland v. Unites States, No. 18-72689 (9th Cir. 2020), significantly affects the ability of local governments to regulate the installation of so called “small cell” wireless facilities and addresses the ability of wireless providers to utilize utility poles. The underlying FCC orders issued in 2018 (the Orders) addressed issues arising from developing 5G broadband technology. The City of Portland upholds most, but finds some of the Orders overbroad. The decision contains nine rulings on the challenged Orders, and this Article will focus on those having the most significant implications for 5G deployment and state and local regulations. The decision rests upon the FCC’s authority created by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (the Act) promulgated to address issues arising out of the then new wireless telecommunications industry. The Act states in pertinent part that the FCC is authorized: “to preempt any state and local requirements that ‘prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting’ any entity from providing telecommunications services. See, 47 U.S.C. §253(a), (d).”
Continue reading by getting
started with a subscription.
Guarantor Liability for Post-Window-Period Rent
By Cheryl Ginsburg
In a case of first impression, the Appellate Division, First Department recently addressed a split in the decisions of the lower courts as to the scope of the New York City Guaranty Law.
By New York Real Estate Law Reporter Staff
Foreclosure on Lien for Common Charges Not Dismissed
Condominium Entitled to Impose Reasonable Fee for Consent to Hallway Enclosure
By New York Real Estate Law Reporter Staff
Illegality Defense Raises Questions of Fact
Good Guy Guaranty Not Released
Exchange of Texts Does Not Constitute Settlement Agreement
Landlord’s Fraudulent Conveyance Claim Against Parking Lot Chain Avoids Dismissal
By New York Real Estate Law Reporter Staff
Boathouse Not an Impermissible Second Dwelling
Reduction In Size Did Not Alter Nonconforming Use Status
Local Ordinance Did Not Prohibit Short-Term Rentals