C.F.R. » Title 14 » CHAPTER I—FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION › SUBCHAPTER G—AIR CARRIERS AND OPERATORS FOR COMPENSATION OR HIRE: CERTIFICATION AND OPERATIONS › PART 119—CERTIFICATION: AIR CARRIERS AND COMMERCIAL OPERATORS › Subpart A—General

14 C.F.R. § 119.3

[Reserved]

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases, 1998–2011 · leading case: Arapahoe Cnty. Pub. Airport Auth. v. Centennial Express Airlines, Inc., 956 P.2d 587 (Colo. 1998).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Arapahoe Cnty. Pub. Airport Auth. v. Centennial Express Airlines, Inc., 956 P.2d 587 (Colo. 1998). · cites it 4× “14 C.F.R. § 119.3 (1997) ("defining scheduled passenger service").”
J.C. Penney Life Ins. Co. v. Christian J. Pilosi James C. Pilosi, 393 F.3d 356 (3d Cir. 2004). “” 14 C.F.R. § 119.3 . The facts of this case dem *367 onstrate that EA does not meet the definition of “regular passenger service.”
Gorman v. Nat'l Transp. Saf. Bd., 558 F.3d 580 (D.C. Cir. 2009). “” 14 C.F.R. § 119.3 ; see, e.g., 14 C.F.R. § 119.”
State v. Sullivan, 2011-Ohio-2976. “3 of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 14 C.F.R. 119.3, as amended, and that is required to be 11 under a security program and is governed by aviation security rules of the transportation security administration of the United States department of transportation as…”
Brown v. Eurocopter S.A., 111 F. Supp. 2d 859 (S.D. Tex. 2000). “14 C.F.R. § 119.3 . PHI’s operations, including Brown’s fatal flight, were conducted under Part 135 regulations.”
ICAN Enter., Inc. v. Williamson Cnty. Appraisal Dist. & Williamson Cnty. Appraisal Review Bd., No. 03-06-00594-CV, 2009 WL 1025084 (Tex. App.—Austin Apr. 17, 2009). “" See Federal Aviation Regulations, 14 C.F.R. § 119.3 (2008). Rather than equating the two phrases, this provision distinguishes equipment used for the operation of an aircraft from the actual aircraft itself.”
ICAN Enter., Inc. v. Williamson Cnty. Appraisal Dist. & Williamson Cnty. Appraisal Review Bd., No. 03-06-00594-CV (Tex. App.—Austin Apr. 17, 2009). “” See Federal Aviation Regulations, 14 C.F.R. § 119.3 (2008). Rather than equating the two phrases, this provision distinguishes equipment used for the operation of an aircraft from the 7 actual aircraft itself.”
JC Penney Life Ins v. Pilosi, No. 02-4204 (3d Cir. Dec. 28, 2004). “” 14 C.F.R. § 119.3 . The facts of this case demonstrate that EA does not meet the definition of “regular passenger service.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.