Results.
Game Changers
-
November 18, 2025, www.insidetowers.com
-
November 4, 2025, www.verizon.com
-
October 2, 2025, www.fcc.gov
-
September 23, 2025, www.insidetowers.com
-
September 8, 2025, www.insidetowers.com
-
March 4, 2025, www.insidetowers.com
-
February 27, 2025, Insidetowers.com
-
March 12, 2024, www.tasb.org
-
March 12, 2024, www.insidetowers.com
-
May 1, 2023, www.insidetowers.com
Cases
-
- 2026 – Secured Summary Judgment and Injunctive Relief for a National Tower Company in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas for the failure of the Town’s Denial of SUP Application to be in writing and supported by substantial evidence in the written record.
- 2026 – Secured Summary Judgment and Injunctive Relief for National Tower Company in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Missouri based on National Tower Company’s effective prohibition claim.
- 2025 – Obtained Final Judgment in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas ordering the approval of a Regional Tower Company’s SUP application for a stealth tower consistent with the Settlement Agreement entered into by the Tower Company and the City.
- Successfully represented tower company in federal court litigation that challenged local government’s denials of permits and prohibitions of service under Sections 253 and 332 of the Communications Act. Obtained settlement and issuance of permits.
- Represented an international tower company in federal court litigation against a city for the denial of 47 U.S.C. Sec. 1455(a) “eligible facilities requests” to add, remove or replace wireless equipment from an existing wireless tower and successfully obtained settlement and issuance of building permits.
- Represented national tower company in federal court litigation against a city and successfully obtained settlement and District Court order finding that the city violated Section 332(c)(7) of the Federal Communications Act.
- Represented national tower company in federal court litigation against a city alleging that the city’s denial of the company’s application for a specific use permit violated Section 332(c)(7) of the Federal Communications Act.