14 C.F.R. § 382.1
What is the purpose of this part?
The purpose of this part is to carry out the Air Carrier Access Act of 1986, as amended. This rule prohibits both U.S. and foreign carriers from discriminating against passengers on the basis of disability; requires carriers to make aircraft, other facilities, and services accessible; and requires carriers to take steps to accommodate passengers with a disability.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1984–2025 · leading case: Elassaad v. Indep. Air, Inc., 613 F.3d 119 (3rd Cir. 2010).
Elassaad v. Indep. Air, Inc., 613 F.3d 119 (3rd Cir. 2010). “Specifically, Independence argued that the regulations implementing the ACAA, 4 which address air carriers’ conduct toward the disabled, see 14 C.F.R. §§ 382.1 -.70 (2004), preempt state law negligence standards.”
Richard A. Bower v. Fed. Express Corp., 96 F.3d 200 (6th Cir. 1996). “See 14 C.F.R. § 382.1 (the purpose of 14 C.F.”
Russell Wayne Anderson v. Usair, Inc, 818 F.2d 49 (D.C. Cir. 1987). “See Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Handicap, Subpart A, 14 C.F.R. § 382.1 -.5 (1986). We do not address the validity of the final regulations because, on an issue necessarily prior, we find that no congressional intent, express or implied, allows a private citizen to bring…”
Michael Hingson v. Pac. Sw. Airlines, a California Corp., 743 F.2d 1408 (9th Cir. 1984). “See also 14 C.F.R. §§ 382.1 -.25 (1983) (regulations implementing § 504).”
Gill v. JetBlue Airways Corp., 836 F. Supp. 2d 33 (D. Mass. 2011). “See 14 C.F.R. §§ 382.1 et seq. Because the regulations leave such issues open, federal law cannot possibly preempt all state tort claims in this area.”
Tobin v. AMR Corp., 637 F. Supp. 2d 406 (N.D. Tex. 2009). “and foreign carriers from discriminating against passengers on the basis of disability; requires carriers to make aircraft, other facilities, and services accessible; and requires carriers to take steps to accommodate passengers with a disability.”
Summers v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 805 F. Supp. 2d 874 (N.D. Cal. 2011). “14 C.F.R. § 382.1 . Defendants also argue that the Federal Aviation Act, 49 U.”
Elassaad v. Indep. Air, Inc., 604 F.3d 804 (3rd Cir. 2010). “Specifically, Independence argued that the regulations implementing the ACAA, [4] which address air carriers' conduct toward the disabled, see 14 C.F.R. §§ 382.1 -.70 (2004), preempt state law negligence standards.”
Segalman v. Sw. Airlines, 913 F. Supp. 2d 941 (E.D. Cal. 2012). “” 14 C.F.R. § 382.1 (emphasis added). “Facility” encompasses more than just aircraft as it includes “any portion of an airport that a carrier owns, leases, or controls (e.”
Rowley v. Am. Airlines, 875 F. Supp. 708 (D. Or. 1995). “See 14 C.F.R. § 382.1 et seq. Accordingly, this court may determine whether American Airlines has complied with those regulations and, if not, whether injunctive relief would be an appropriate remedy.”
Berlin v. Jetblue Airways Corp. (E.D.N.Y 2020). “” 14 C.F.R. § 382.1 . On April 27, 2018, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s negligent training claim “pursuant to Lopez v.”
Howard v. United Airlines Inc (D. Maryland 2025). “” 14 C.F.R. § 382.1 . Any alleged violations of 14 C.”
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.