Northeast Communications of Wisconsin, Inc. v. CenturyTel, Inc.

516 F.3d 608 (2008)

From our private database of 47,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Northeast Communications of Wisconsin, Inc. v. CenturyTel, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
516 F.3d 608 (2008)

Facts

In 1989, five companies formed Wisconsin RSA # 10 L.P. (partnership) to provide cellular communication services in Wisconsin. Those companies were Casco Telephone (Casco), Universal Cellular (Universal), Northeast Communications (Northeast) (plaintiff), Lakefield Communications (Lakefield), and Wayside Telecom (Wayside). The limited-partnership agreement conferred certain rights of first refusal. Section 11.1 stated that before any partner could sell its partnership interest, any of the other partners had the right to purchase the interest. However, section 11.3 stated that any transfer of partnership interests between Northeast and Wayside did not give the other three companies a right to purchase the interests being transferred. Additionally, section 11.5 stated that Casco, Universal, and Lakefield could transfer their partnership interests to their affiliates at any time. It also stated that if Casco, Universal, Lakefield, or their affiliates transferred a partnership interest to each other or each other’s affiliates, then Casco, Universal, or Lakefield had the option to purchase the interest being transferred or any portion of that interest. It then stated that if the interest was not purchased by Casco, Universal, or Lakefield, then the interest was subject to purchase by the other partners, namely Northeast and Wayside. When the partnership was formed, Universal’s parent company was Alltel Corporation. Alltel was later acquired by CenturyTel Wireless, Inc. (CenturyTel) (defendant). Northeast argued that the change in ownership triggered section 11.5. Further, because Casco was no longer a partner and Lakefield had not purchased Universal’s interest, Northeast claimed that section 11.5 gave it the right to purchase Universal’s interest. Universal refused to sell, arguing that the change to its parent company did not trigger section 11.5. When Northeast sued CenturyTel to force a sale, the district court held in CenturyTel’s favor. Northeast appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Easterbrook, C.J.)

What to do next…

  1. 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 921,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. 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.

Here's why 921,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,300 briefs, keyed to 1,000 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 921,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 47,300 briefs - keyed to 1,000 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership

Understand your casebook readings in seconds

Use our case briefs to comprehend your casebook readings faster, supplement your notes and outlines, and outshine your peers in class.

Get instant access to over 47,300+ expert-written case briefs in a searchable database keyed to 1,000 law school casebooks.

Case book preview