23 C.F.R. § 924.1

Purpose

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

The purpose of this regulation is to prescribe requirements for the development, implementation, and evaluation of a highway safety improvement program (HSIP) in each State.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 1991–2019 · leading case: Long v. State ex rel. Dep't of Transp. & Dev., 916 So. 2d 87 (La. 2005).
Long v. State ex rel. Dep't of Transp. & Dev., 916 So. 2d 87 (La. 2005). “23 C.F.R. § 924.1 . Under the Program, states are required to “conduct and systematically maintain a survey of all highways to identify those railroad crossings which may require separation, relocation, or protective devices, and establish and implement a schedule of projects…”
Long v. State Ex Rel. Dotd, 916 So. 2d 87 (La. 2005). “23 C.F.R. § 924.1 . Under the Program, states are required to "conduct and systematically maintain a survey of all highways to identify those railroad crossings which may require separation, relocation, or protective devices, and establish and implement a schedule of projects…”
Hatfield v. Burlington N. R.R., 757 F. Supp. 1198 (D. Kan. 1991). “For instance, 23 C.F.R. § 924.1 says its purpose “is to set forth policy for the development and implementation of a comprehensive highway safety improvement program in each State.”
Hamilton v. Illinois Cent. R.R., 894 F. Supp. 1014 (S.D. Miss. 1995). “283 ; 23 C.F.R. § 924.1 ; see also 23 U.S.C. §§ 120 (a)-(d); 130(a)-(d); 23 C.”
Dep't of Transp. v. Superior Court, 96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5428 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996). “” ( 23 C.F.R. § 924.1 , italics added.) Under section 402, one of the statutes identified as authority for the regulations, the elements of a comprehensive highway safety improvement program extend well beyond the elimination of roadway hazards.”
Borden v. Kansas City S. Ry. Co., 895 So. 2d 787 (La. Ct. App. 2005). “That program is directed to the states and is the topic of regulations contained in 23 C.F.R. § 924.1 , et seq., which includes safety directives for the Crossings Program.”
Clifton v. S. Intermodal Xpress, LLC (S.D. Ala. 2019). “” 23 C.F.R. § 924.1 . (See Doc. 164 at 19 (citing 23 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.