Sprint Communications Co. v. Jacobs, et al, No. 11-2984 (8th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this CaseSprint contested the IUB order compelling it to pay intrastate access charges to Windstream, an Iowa communications company, for Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) calls. Sprint filed a complaint in federal district court seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The same day, Sprint also filed a petition for review in Iowa state court, asserting, among other claims, that the IUB's order was preempted under federal law. The federal district court abstained pursuant to Younger v. Harris and dismissed the action. The court affirmed the district court's decision to abstain, but the court vacated the judgment of dismissal and remanded the case with instruction to stay the proceedings.
Court Description: Civil case - Telecommunications. Where Sprint filed a federal law suit to determine whether the Iowa Utility Board erred in ordering Sprint to pay certain VoIP access charges and a state court suit asserting, among other things, that the Board's order was preempted by federal law, the district court did not err in deciding it should abstain pursuant to Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971); however, the district court erred in dismissing the action and the dismissal is vacated and the case remanded with direction to stay the proceedings.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on March 10, 2014.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.