Hyperlawhypertext legal databasebeta Mathias v. Worldcom Technologies, Inc. 535 U.S. 682

← Cases

Mathias v. Worldcom Technologies, Inc.

535 U.S. 682 Court SCOTUS Decision date 2002-05-20 Docket No. 00-878 English

Judges Justice O’Connor took no part in the consideration or decision of this' case.

Delivered by Per Curiam.

Contents

Majority

p. 682
MATHIAS et al. v. WORLDCOM TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.
No. 00-878.
Argued December 5, 2001 —
Decided May 20, 2002
Joel D. Bertocchi, Solicitor General of Illinois, argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the briefs were James E. Ryan, Attorney General, A. Benjamin Goldgar and Michael R Doyle, Assistant Attorneys General, Myra L. Karegianes, John P. Kelliher, and Thomas R. Stanton.
Barbara McDowell argued the cause for the United States as respondent under this Court’s Rule 12.6 urging affirmance. With her on the brief were Solicitor General Olson, Acting Assistant Attorney General Katsas, Deputy Solicitor General Wallace, Mark B. Stern, Charles W. Scarborough, and John A. Rogovin.
Paul M. Smith argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief for respondents WorldCom Technologies, Inc., et al. were William M. Hohengarten, Michael B. De-Sanctis, Darryl M. Bradford, John J. Hamill, William Single IV, Brian J. Leske, and Richard Metzger. David W. Carpenter, Stephen B. Kinnaird, and Marc C. Rosenblum filed a brief for respondent AT&T Communications of Illinois, Inc., et al. Stephen M. Shapiro, John E. Muench, Theodore A. Livingston, Robert M. Dow, Jr., Michael W. McConnell, Martin H. Redish, and William M. Schur filed a brief
p. 683
for respondent Illinois Bell Telephone Co., dba Ameritech Illinois.[1]

We granted certiorari to consider three questions: (1) whether a state commission’s action reláting to the enforcement of an interconnection agreement is reviewable in federal court under 47 U. S. C. § 252 (e)(6) (1994 ed., Supp. IV); (2) whether a state commission waives its Eleventh Amendment immunity by voluntarily participating in the regulatory scheme established by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56 ; and (3) whether the doctrine of Ex parte Young, 209 U. S. 123 (1908), permits suit for prospective relief against state public utility commissioners in their official capacities for. alleged

p. 684
ongoing violations of that Act. 532 U. S. 903 (2001). After full briefing and oral argument, it is now clear that petitioners were the prevailing parties below, and seek review of uncongenial findings not essential to the judgment and not binding upon them in future litigation. As a general rule, a party may not appeal from a favorable judgment simply to obtain review of findings it deems erroneous. See New York Telephone Co. v. Maltbie, 291 U. S. 645 (1934) (per curiam).

We have since granted certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit to review the same questions, arising in the same factual context. Verizon Md. Inc. v. Public Serv. Comm’n of Md., and United States v. Public Serv. Comm’n of Md., 534 U. S. 1072 (2001). Our decision in those cases is released today. See Verizon Md. Inc. v. Public Serv. Comm’n of Md., ante, p. 635. The writ in this case is dismissed as improvidently granted.

It is so ordered.

Justice O’Connor took no part in the consideration or decision of this' case.

Cases cited

Statutes and regulations cited