# Sprint Telephony PCS, L.P. v. County of San Diego

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · September 11, 2008 · 543 F.3d 571

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9564078

## Case

- **Full name:** SPRINT TELEPHONY PCS, L.P., a Delaware Limited Partnership, Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee, and Pacific Bell Wireless LLC, a Nevada Limited Liability Company, Dba Cingular Wireless, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, a Division of the State of California; Greg Cox, in His Capacity as a Supervisor of the County of San Diego; Dianne Jacob, in Her Capacity as a Supervisor of the County of San Diego; Pam Slater, in Her Capacity as a Supervisor of the County of San Diego; Ron Roberts, in His Capacity as a Supervisor of the County of San Diego; Bill Horn, in His Capacity as a Supervisor of the County of San Diego, Defendants-Appellees/Cross-Appellants
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** September 11, 2008
- **Citations:** 543 F.3d 571; 45 Communications Reg. (P&F) 1317; 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 19316; 2008 WL 4166657
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Gould
- **Judges:** Kozinski, Kleinfeld, Hawkins, Tashima, Thomas, Silverman, Graber, Gould, Berzon, Tallman, Bybee
- **Cited by:** 48 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9564078

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding that Sprint’s facial challenge to San Diego ordinance that regulated the placement of small wireless facilities failed to show that no set of circumstances existed under which the regulations would be valid
- rejecting a facial preemption challenge to a local ordinance because the plaintiff failed to “establish that no set of circumstances exists under which [the ordinance] would be valid”
- stating that the zoning board may consider “other valid public goals such as safety and aesthet- ics”

## Opinion text

GOULD, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I concur in full in Judge Graber’s majority opinion, holding that Section 253(a) preempts any state or local law that actually or effectively prohibits provision of telecommunication services. I write separately to add my view that normally local governments will have the ability to enforce reasonable zoning ordinances that might affect where and how a cellular tower is located, but that will not effectively prohibit cellular telephone service. Zoning ordinances, in my view, will be preempted only if they would substantially interfere with the ability of the carrier to provide such services. Cases of a preempted zoning ordinance will doubtless be few and far between, and the record in this case shows that telecommunication services here were not effectively barred by the zoning ordinance.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9564078. Public record. Not legal advice.