14 C.F.R. § 252.2
Applicability
This part applies to operations of air carriers engaged in interstate, intrastate and foreign air transportation and to foreign air carriers engaged in foreign air transportation.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5
cases, 1980–1988 · leading case: Ravreby v. United Airlines, Inc., 293 N.W.2d 260 (Iowa 1980).
Ravreby v. United Airlines, Inc., 293 N.W.2d 260 (Iowa 1980). “Aside from requiring each carrier to designate a sufficient number of no-smoking seats in each class of service to accommodate persons who wish to be seated in those areas, 14 C.F.R. § 252.2 , CAB purposely allowed carriers flexibility in adopting their own schemes for…”
Action on Smoking & Health v. Civil Aeronautics Bd., 713 F.2d 795 (D.C. Cir. 1983). “14 C.F.R. § 252.2 (e) (1981). On September 2,1981, the CAB adopted ER-1245, revoking these three protections.”
Ricci v. Am. Airlines, 544 A.2d 428 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1988). “Indeed, the public's concern over this issue has engendered 14 CFR 121 and 135, FAA regulations which prohibit smoking on flights of less *383 than two hours and 14 CFR 252.2 which requires commercial airlines to provide separate seating for nonsmokers on other flights.”
United States v. Gutierrez, 624 F. Supp. 759 (E.D.N.Y 1985). “§ 1471 (a) for Delta’s admitted violation of 14 C.F.R. § 252.2 (requiring non-smoking area for all passengers so requesting it).”
Action on Smoking & Health v. Civil Aeronautics Bd., 699 F.2d 1209 (D.C. Cir. 1983). “The portions of ER-1245 which adopted the late arrival rule ( 14 C.F.R. § 252.2 ), rejected a proposed total smoking ban, and rejected a proposed revocation of all smoking regulations are not challenged, and are therefore not in issue here.”
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.