MATHIAS et al. v. WORLDCOM TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.

535US3 Unit: $U50 [09-29-03 14:56:44] PAGES PGT: OPIN
682 OCTOBER TERM, 2001
Syllabus
MATHIAS et al. v. WORLDCOM TECHNOLOGIES,
INC., et al.
certiorari to the united states court of appeals for
the seventh circuit
No. 00–878. Argued December 5, 2001—Decided May 20, 2002
Because, after full briefing and oral argument, it is clear that petitioners
were the prevailing parties below and seek review of uncongenial find-
ings not essential to the judgment and not binding upon them in future
litigation, certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted. See New
York Telephone Co. v. Maltbie, 291 U. S. 645 (per curiam).
Certiorari dismissed. Reported below: 179 F. 3d 566.
Joel D. Bertocchi, Solicitor General of Illinois, argued the
cause for petitioners. With him on the briefs were James
E. Ryan, Attorney General, A. Benjamin Goldgar and
Michael P. Doyle, Assistant Attorneys General, Myra L.
Karegianes, John P. Kelliher, and Thomas R. Stanton.
Barbara McDowell argued the cause for the United
States as respondent under this Court’s Rule 12.6 urging
affirmance. With her on the brief were Solicitor General
Olson, Acting Assistant Attorney General Katsas, Deputy
Solicitor General Wallace, Mark B. Stern, Charles W. Scar-
borough, and John A. Rogovin.
Paul M. Smith argued the cause for respondents. With
him on the brief for respondents WorldCom Technologies,
Inc., et al. were William M. Hohengarten, Michael B. De-
Sanctis, Darryl M. Bradford, John J. Hamill, William Sin-
gle IV, Brian J. Leske, and Richard Metzger. David W. Car-
penter, Stephen B. Kinnaird, and Marc C. Rosenblum filed a
brief for respondent AT&T Communications of Illinois, Inc.,
et al. Stephen M. Shapiro, John E. Muench, Theodore A.
Livingston, Robert M. Dow, Jr., Michael W. McConnell,
Martin H. Redish, and William M. Schur filed a brief

535US3 Unit: $U50 [09-29-03 14:56:44] PAGES PGT: OPIN
683 Cite as: 535 U. S. 682 (2002)
Per Curiam
for respondent Illinois Bell Telephone Co., dba Ameritech
Illinois.*
Per Curiam.
We granted certiorari to consider three questions: (1)
whether a state commission’s action relating to the en-
forcement of an interconnection agreement is reviewable
in federal court under 47 U. S. C. § 252(e)(6) (1994 ed.,
Supp. IV); (2) whether a state commission waives its Elev-
enth Amendment immunity by voluntarily participating in
the regulatory scheme established by the Telecommuni-
cations Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104–104, 110 Stat. 56; and
(3) whether the doctrine of Ex parte Young, 209 U. S. 123
(1908), permits suit for prospective relief against state public
utility commissioners in their official capacities for alleged
*Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for the State of New
Jersey et al. by John J. Farmer, Jr., Attorney General of New Jersey,
Andrea Silkowitz and Nancy Kaplen, Assistant Attorneys General, and
Stefanie A. Brand, Deputy Attorney General, and by the Attorneys Gen-
eral for their respective jurisdictions as follows: Bill Pryor of Alabama,
Bruce M. Botelho of Alaska, Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, Robert
A. Butterworth of Florida, Thurbert E. Baker of Georgia, Alan G. Lance
of Idaho, Steve Carter of Indiana, Thomas F. Reilly of Massachusetts,
Carla J. Stovall of Kansas, Jennifer M. Granholm of Michigan, Ray
Cooper of North Carolina, Herbert D. Soll of the Northern Mariana Is-
lands, Betty D. Montgomery of Ohio, Mark Barnett of South Dakota, and
Mark L. Shurtleff of Utah; for the Coalition for Local Sovereignty by
Kenneth B. Clark; for the Council of State Governments et al. by Richard
Ruda and James I. Crowley; and for the Pennsylvania Public Utility Com-
mission by Maryanne Reynolds Martin and Bohdan R. Pankiw.
Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for BellSouth
Corp. et al. by Mark L. Evans, Michael K. Kellogg, Sean A. Lev, Aaron
M. Panner, William P. Barr, Mark J. Mathis, Michael D. Lowe, Charles
R. Morgan, and John W. Hunter; and for the NOW Legal Defense and
Education Fund by Lesley Szanto Friedman, Aidan Synnott, Martha
F. Davis, and Isabelle Katz Pinzler.
Briefs of amici curiae were filed for the National Association of Reg-
ulatory Utility Commissioners et al. by James Bradford Ramsay, Carl
F. Patka, and Neil T. Erwin; and for Sprint Corp. by David P. Murray.

535US3 Unit: $U50 [09-29-03 14:56:44] PAGES PGT: OPIN
684 MATHIAS v. WORLDCOM TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
Per Curiam
ongoing violations of that Act. 532 U. S. 903 (2001). After
full briefing and oral argument, it is now clear that petition-
ers were the prevailing parties below, and seek review of
uncongenial findings not essential to the judgment and not
binding upon them in future litigation. As a general rule, a
party may not appeal from a favorable judgment simply to
obtain review of findings it deems erroneous. See New York
Telephone Co. v. Maltbie, 291 U. S. 645 (1934) (per curiam).
We have since granted certiorari to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit to review the same
questions, arising in the same factual context. Verizon Md.
Inc. v. Public Serv. Comm’n of Md., and United States v.
Public Serv. Comm’n of Md., 534 U. S. 1072 (2001). Our de-
cision in those cases is released today. See Verizon Md. Inc.
v. Public Serv. Comm’n of Md., ante, p. 635. The writ in
this case is dismissed as improvidently granted.
It is so ordered.
Justice O’Connor took no part in the consideration or
decision of this case.