Cases pin-citing Maislin Industries · Go Syfert
Search » Famous passages » Cases pin-citing Maislin Industries

Cases pin-citing Maislin Industries

Maislin Industries, U. S., Inc. v. Primary Steel, Inc.  ·  1990  ·  86 pinpoint citations from 32 cases, 14 distinct passages.

De Mejias v. Malloy  ·  2018-10-25  ·  D. Connecticut  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 110 L. Ed. 2d at 94
"[T]he rate of the carrier duly filed is the only lawful charge."
Donald Wortman v. All Nippon Airways  ·  2017-04-14  ·  Ninth Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 110 L. Ed. 2d at 94
“Generalized congressional exhortations to ‘increase competition’ cannot provide the ICC authority to alter the well-established statutory filed rate requirements.”
Western Home Transport, Inc. v. Hexco, LLC  ·  2014-06-27  ·  D. North Dakota  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 110 L. Ed. 2d at 94
“Maislin Industries ”
Bautista v. Attorney General of the United States  ·  2014-02-28  ·  Third Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 110 L. Ed. 2d at 94
“Once we have determined a statute’s clear meaning, we adhere to that determination under the doctrine of stare decisis, and we judge an agency’s later interpretation of the statute against our prior determination of the statute’s meaning.”
United Van Lines, LLC v. Crye-Leike, Inc.  ·  2013-10-29  ·  E.D. New York  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 110 L. Ed. 2d at 94
“[t]he legal rights of shipper as against carrier in respect to a rate are measured by the published tariff. Unless and until suspended or set aside, this rate is made for all purposes, the legal rate, as between carrier.and shipper.”
Oregon v. Ashcroft  ·  2004-05-26  ·  Ninth Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 110 L. Ed. 2d at 94
“Once we have determined a statute’s clear meaning, we adhere to that determination under the doctrine of stare decisis, and we judge an agency’s later interpretation of the statute against our prior determination of the statute’s meaning.”
Anheuser-Busch, Incorporated v. National Labor Relations Board, National Labor Relations Board v. Anheuser-Busch, Incorporated  ·  2003-08-01  ·  Fourth Circuit  ·  6 pin-cites  ·  pin 110 L. Ed. 2d at 94
"Once we have determined a statute's clear meaning, we adhere to that determination under the doctrine of stare decisis, and we judge an agency's later interpretation of the statute against our prior determination of the statute's meaning."
California Department of Social Services v. Thompson  ·  2003-03-03  ·  Ninth Circuit  ·  2 pin-cites  ·  pin 110 L. Ed. 2d at 94
“Once [the Supreme Court has] determined a statute’s clear meaning, we must adhere to that determination under the doctrine of stare decisis, and we judge an agency’s later interpretation of the statute against our prior determination of the statute’s meaning.”
State of California Department of Social Services v. Thompson  ·  2003-03-03  ·  Ninth Circuit  ·  2 pin-cites  ·  pin 110 L. Ed. 2d at 94
"Once [the Supreme Court has] determined a statute's clear meaning, we must adhere to that determination under the doctrine of stare decisis, and we judge an agency's later interpretation of the statute against our prior determination of the statute's meaning."
Ting v. AT&T  ·  2003-02-11  ·  Ninth Circuit  ·  pin 110 S. Ct. at 2759
“The rights as defined by the tariff cannot be varied or enlarged by either contract or tort of the carrier.”
Ting v. At&t  ·  2003-02-11  ·  Ninth Circuit  ·  pin 110 S. Ct. at 2759
"The rights as defined by the tariff cannot be varied or enlarged by either contract or tort of the carrier."
Geraldine Sacco v. Department of Justice  ·  2003-01-21  ·  Federal Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 110 L. Ed. 2d at 94
“Once we have determined a statute’s clear meaning, we adhere to that determination under the doctrine of stare decisis, and we judge an agency’s later interpretation of the statute against our prior determination of the statute’s meaning.”
Ne Hub Partners, L.P. v. CNG Transmission Corp.  ·  2001-01-29  ·  Third Circuit  ·  pin 497 U.S. at 116
"Once we have determined a statute's clear meaning, we adhere to that determination under the doctrine of stare decisis, and we judge an agency's later interpretation of the statute against our prior determination of the statute's meaning."
EEX Corp. v. United States Department of the Interior  ·  2000-08-23  ·  District of Columbia  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 110 L. Ed. 2d at 94
“Once we have determined a statute’s clear meaning, we adhere to that determination under the doctrine of stare decisis, and we judge an agency’s later interpretation of the statute against our prior determination of the statute’s meaning.”
Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission  ·  2000-07-14  ·  D.C. Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 110 L. Ed. 2d at 94
“Once we have determined a statute's clear meaning, we adhere to that determination under the doctrine of stare decisis, and we judge an agency’s later interpretation of the statute against our prior determination of the statute's meaning.”
Transmission Access Policy Study Group v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission  ·  2000-06-30  ·  D.C. Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 110 L. Ed. 2d at 94
“Once we have determined a statute’s clear meaning, we adhere to that determination under the doctrine of stare decisis, and we judge an agency’s later interpretation of the statute against our prior determination of the statute’s meaning.”
Transmission Access Policy Study Group v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission  ·  2000-06-30  ·  D.C. Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 110 L. Ed. 2d at 94
“Once we have determined a statute’s clear meaning, we adhere to that determination under the doctrine of stare decisis, and we judge an agency’s later interpretation of the statute against our prior determination of the statute’s meaning.”
Telecom International America, Ltd. v. AT & T Corp.  ·  1999-08-13  ·  S.D. New York  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 110 L. Ed. 2d at 94
“Mais- lin”
Kutler, Stanley I. v. Carlin, John W.  ·  1998-03-31  ·  D.C. Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 110 L. Ed. 2d at 94
“Once we have determined a statute’s clear meaning, we adhere to that determination under the doctrine of stare decisis, and we judge an agency’s later interpretation of the statute against our. prior determination of the statute’s meaning.”
Central Office Telephone, Inc. v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co.  ·  1997-02-26  ·  Ninth Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 110 L. Ed. 2d at 94
“This Court has long understood that the filed rate governs the legal relationship between shipper and carrier”
Wiggins v. Wise  ·  1996-10-09  ·  S.D. West Virginia  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 110 L. Ed. 2d at 94
“Once we have determined a statute’s clear meaning, we adhere to that determination under the doctrine of stare decisis, and we judge an agency’s later interpretation of the statute against our prior determination of the statute’s meaning.”
Big Rivers Electric Corp. v. Thorpe  ·  1996-03-29  ·  W.D. Kentucky  ·  2 pin-cites  ·  pin 110 S. Ct. at 116
“This court has long understood that the filed rate governs the legal relationship between shipper and carrier.”
Fort Wayne Community Schools v. Fort Wayne Education Association, Inc., and United States Postal Service  ·  1993-03-22  ·  Seventh Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 110 L. Ed. 2d at 94
“Once we have determined a statute’s clear meaning, we adhere to that determination under the doctrine of stare decisis, and we judge an agency’s later interpretation of the statute against our prior determination of the statute’s meaning.”
Cooper v. Interstate Commerce Commission (In Re Bulldog Trucking, Inc.)  ·  1992-10-22  ·  W.D. North Carolina  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 110 L. Ed. 2d at 94
“[L]egal rights of shipper as against carrier in respect to a rate are measured by the published tariff.”
Rebel Motor Freight, Inc. v. Interstate Commerce Commission and Diamond-Bathurst, Inc.  ·  1992-08-11  ·  Sixth Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 110 L. Ed. 2d at 94
“Once we have determined the statute’s clear meaning, we adhere to that determination under the doctrine of stare decisis, and we judge an agency’s later interpretation of the statute against our prior determination of the statute’s meaning.”
United States Postal Service v. National Labor Relations Board  ·  1992-06-30  ·  D.C. Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 110 L. Ed. 2d at 94
“Once we have determined a statute’s clear meaning, we adhere to that determination under the doctrine of stare decisis, and we judge an agency’s later interpretation of the statute against our prior determination of the statute’s meaning.”
United States Postal Service v. National Labor Relations Board  ·  1992-06-30  ·  D.C. Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 110 L. Ed. 2d at 94
"Once we have determined a statute's clear meaning, we adhere to that determination under the doctrine of stare decisis, and we judge an agency's later interpretation of the statute against our prior determination of the statute's meaning."
Union Pacific Railroad v. Nevada Power Co.  ·  1991-12-11  ·  Ninth Circuit  ·  2 pin-cites  ·  pin 110 L. Ed. 2d at 94
“filed rate is not enforceable if the ICC finds the rate to be unreasonable”
Union Pacific Railroad Company v. Nevada Power Co.  ·  1991-12-11  ·  Ninth Circuit  ·  2 pin-cites  ·  pin 110 L. Ed. 2d at 94
"filed rate is not enforceable if the ICC finds the rate to be unreasonable"
Page 1 of 2   Next →