New York State Motor Truck Ass'n, Inc. v. The City Of New York, 833 F.2d 430 (2d Cir. 1987). · Go Syfert
Search
New York State Motor Truck Ass'n, Inc. v. The City Of New York, 833 F.2d 430 (2d Cir. 1987). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
19 citation events (2 in the last 25 years) across 8 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: NH Motor Transport v. Town of Plaistow (ca1, 1995-10-25)
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited "see" NH Motor Transport v. Town of Plaistow
1st Cir. · 1995 · signal: see · confidence high
See New York State Motor Truck Ass'n v. City of New York, 654 F.Supp. 1521, 1533 (S.D.N.Y.1987), aff'd 833 F.2d 430 (2d Cir.1987) (quoting two rather uninformative sentences).
cited Cited "see" New Hampshire Motor Transport Ass'n v. Town of Plaistow
1st Cir. · 1995 · signal: see · confidence high
See New York State Motor Truck Ass’n v. City of New York, 654 F.Supp. 1521, 1533 (S.D.N.Y.1987), aff'd 833 F.2d 430 (2d Cir.1987) (quoting two rather uninformative sentences).
discussed Cited "see" Evans v. Burnley
M.D. Tenn. · 1988 · signal: see · confidence high
See New York State Motor Truck Ass’n v. City of New York, 654 F.Supp. 1521, 1525 (S.D.N.Y.), aff'd, 833 F.2d 430 (2d Cir.1987) (per curiam) (“Congress intended explicitly to preempt State regulations of STAA vehicles that conflict with the provisions and purposes of the statute.”).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Aux Sable Liquid Products v. Murphy
7th Cir. · 2008 · signal: see also · confidence low
Freight System, Inc. v. Suthard, 681 F.Supp. 334, 341 (E.D.Va.1988); see also New York State Motor Truck Ass'n v. City of New York, 654 F.Supp. 1521 (S.D.N.Y. 1987), aff'd 833 F.2d 430 (2d Cir.1987); Consolidated Freightways Corp. of Delaware, 647 F.Supp. at 1483-84 ; see also Keck v. Commonwealth ex rel.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." A.B.F. Freight System, Inc. v. Suthard
E.D. Va. · 1988 · signal: see also · confidence low
As the court held in Larson , any scheme of access-by-approval will be invalid and preempted under § 2312 “to the extent that it leads to denials of access for reasons other than the safety of the public.” Larson, 647 F.Supp. at 1495 ; see also New York State Motor Truck Ass’n v. New York City, 654 F.Supp. 1521, 1539 (S.D.N.Y.1987), aff'd mem. 833 F.2d 430 (2d Cir.1987) (states may not impose “restrictions that are not based on safety”).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
New York State Motor Truck Association, Inc., Roadway Express Inc., Consolidated Freightways Corp. Of Delaware, Yellow Freight System, Inc., United Parcel Service of America, Inc., Abf Freight System Inc., Carolina Freight Carriers Corp., A-P-A Transport Corp.
v.
The City of New York, Edward I. Koch, in His Capacity as Mayor of the City of New York, Ross Sandler, in His Capacity as Commissioner of the Transportation Department of the City of New York, and Benjamin Ward, in His Capacity as Commissioner of the Police Department of the City of New York
133.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Nov 16, 1987.
833 F.2d 430
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published

833 F.2d 430

NEW YORK STATE MOTOR TRUCK ASSOCIATION, INC., Roadway
Express Inc., Consolidated Freightways Corp. of Delaware,
Yellow Freight System, Inc., United Parcel Service of
America, Inc., ABF Freight System Inc., Carolina Freight
Carriers Corp., A-P-A Transport Corp., Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
The CITY OF NEW YORK, Edward I. Koch, in his capacity as
Mayor of the City of New York, Ross Sandler, in his capacity
as Commissioner of the Transportation Department of the City
of New York, and Benjamin Ward, in his capacity as
Commissioner of the Police Department of the City of New
York, Defendants-Appellants.

No. 133, Docket 87-7419.

United States Court of Appeals,
Second Circuit.

Argued Nov. 4, 1987.
Decided Nov. 16, 1987.

Fred Kolikoff, New York City (Peter L. Zimroth, Corp. Counsel of the City of New York, Larry A. Sonnenshein, New York City, of counsel), for defendants-appellants.

Mark L. Davidson, Washington, D.C. (John C. Kirtland, Thomas M. Keeling, Frederick J. Killion, Bishop, Cook, Purcell & Reynolds, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for plaintiffs-appellees.

Before KAUFMAN, PIERCE, and MINER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

This is an appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Charles Haight, Judge, granting the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction prohibiting the defendants from implementing and enforcing Article 19 of New York City's Traffic Rules and Regulations, as revised, and from an order denying defendants' subsequent motion pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) to limit the scope of the injunction. The order denying the Rule 59(e) motion is affirmed; the order granting a preliminary injunction is affirmed substantially for the reasons given by Judge Haight in his lengthy opinion, reported at 654 F.Supp. 1521 (S.D.N.Y.1987).