C.F.R. » Title 14 » CHAPTER II—OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (AVIATION PROCEEDINGS) › SUBCHAPTER A—ECONOMIC REGULATIONS › PART 296—INDIRECT AIR TRANSPORTATION OF PROPERTY › Subpart A—General

14 C.F.R. § 296.1

Purpose

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

This part establishes rules for the indirect air transportation of property. It creates a class of air carriers to provide this air transportation and grants exemptions from certain provisions of the Subtitle VII of Title 49 of the United States Code (Transportation).

[ER-1257, 46 FR 52591, Oct. 27, 1981, as amended at 60 FR 43527, Aug. 22, 1995]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 1962–1997 · leading case: Cmax, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265 (9th Cir. 1962).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Cmax, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265 (9th Cir. 1962). “1 The regulations under which CMAX held its authority are 14 C.F.R. 296.1(a), 296.2(a) and 296.43 2 In a second count stated in the complaint, CMAX sought recovery of the same amount on the alternative theory that it was a sum due upon an open book account.”
Royal Ins. v. Amerford Air Cargo, 654 F. Supp. 679 (S.D.N.Y. 1987). “” 14 C.F.R. § 296.1 (e). *682 The difference between direct and indirect air carriers has been defined as follows: direct air carriers are those who operate aircraft, while indirect air carriers hold out a transportation service to the public under which they utilize the…”
Am. Home Assurance Co. v. Jacky Maeder (Hong Kong) Ltd., 969 F. Supp. 184 (S.D.N.Y. 1997). “The court in Royal held that certain types of freight forwarders may be "indirect” carriers under the convention, basing its holding on a definition of that term found in 14 C.F.R. § 296.1 (e) does not relate directly to the Convention, a number of courts have followed Royal in…”
Cmax, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265 (9th Cir. 1962). “The regulations under which CMAX held its authority are 14 C.F.R. §§ 296.1 (a), 296.2(a) and 296.”
— 14 C.F.R. § 296.1(a) — 1 case
Cmax, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265 (9th Cir. 1962). “1 The regulations under which CMAX held its authority are 14 C.F.R. 296.1(a), 296.2(a) and 296.43 2 In a second count stated in the complaint, CMAX sought recovery of the same amount on the alternative theory that it was a sum due upon an open book account.”
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.