From our private database of 33,600+ case briefs...
Cincinnati SMSA L.P. v. Cincinnati Bell Cellular Systems Co.
Delaware Supreme Court
708 A.2d 989 (1998)
Cincinnati SMSA L.P. (the limited partnership) (plaintiff) was a limited partnership that provided cellular service to Cincinnati, Columbus, and Dayton, Ohio. The limited partnership consisted of regional telephone companies, including Cincinnati Bell Cellular Systems Co. (Cincinnati Bell) (defendant). The limited partnership agreement (the agreement) contained a noncompete clause that forbade any limited partner from providing cellular service within the Cincinnati area separately from the limited partnership while a member of the partnership and five years after leaving the partnership. The agreement defined cellular service as those services regulated by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) under Part 22 of its rules. The agreement also allowed the partners to pursue independent business outside the terms of the noncompete clause. In the 1990s, the FCC started licensing radio stations for a new type of mobile telephone service called personal communication services, regulated under Part 24 of the FCC’s rules. In 1997 Cincinnati Bell obtained a license to provide personal communication services in the Cincinnati area. The limited partnership challenged Cincinnati Bell’s freedom to provide personal communication services. The limited partnership argued that under the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, an additional noncompete provision should be implied into the agreement that would forbid limited partners such as Cincinnati Bell from providing personal communication services independently of the limited partnership. The limited partnership argued that cellular services and personal communication services were indistinguishable by customers and, further, that personal communication services were not covered by the agreement only because they did not exist at the time the agreement was made. The Delaware Court of Chancery held that such a provision should not be implied into the agreement. The limited partnership appealed.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Veasey, C.J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 602,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 602,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 33,600 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.