(a) All common carriers, except express companies, engaged in the transportation of property other than livestock and wild animals, by rail or by water subject to the Interstate Commerce Act are required to use straight bills of lading as prescribed in Appendix A and B to this part, or order bills of lading as prescribed in Appendix A and B to this Part, except that order bills of lading shall:
(1) Be entitled “Uniform Order Bill of Lading” and be designated as “Negotiable” on the front (appendix A to this part);
(2) Indicate consignment “to the order of * * * ” on the front (appendix A to this part); and
(3) Provide for endorsement on the back portion (appendix B to this part).
(b) All such bills of lading:
(1) May be either documented on paper or issued electronically;
(2) May be a copy, reprographic or otherwise, of a printed bill of lading, free from erasure and interlineation;
(3) May vary in the arrangement and spacing of the printed matter on the face of the form.
Notes of Decisions
Am. ROCK SALT CO. v. Norfolk S. Corp., 180 F. Supp. 2d 420 (W.D.N.Y. 2001).
· cites it 3× “§ 14706 and 49 C.F.R. § 1035.1 (b)(2). Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, which are alleged to exceed $700,000, and costs and attorney’s fees.”
Glenn Hunter & Assocs., Inc. v. Union Pac. R.R., 135 F. App'x 849 (6th Cir. 2005).
· cites it 3× “The bill of lading, plaintiff notes, must, pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 1035.1 , include language specifying that suits are to be filed within two years and one day from the date on which a claim is rejected.”
Wheeling & Lake Erie Ry. Co. v. Keach, 956 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2020).
“In its view, the estate possessed contract and regulatory claims against the Shipper based on indemnification obligations under both the through bill of lading issued by Canadian Pacific and the uniform bill of lading applicable to rail shipments pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 1035.1 .…”
C.A.R. Transp. Brokerage Co. v. Darden Restaurants, Inc., 213 F.3d 474 (9th Cir. 2000).
“Although motor carriers are not required to use the Uniform Straight Bill of Lading prescribed for rail and water common carriers, see 49 C.F.R. § 1035.1 (a), the parties here have adapted it for their purposes, see 49 C.”
Ford Motor Co. v. Transp. Indem. Co., 795 F.2d 538 (6th Cir. 1986).
“32 endorsement, which Ford had failed to file with ATI within the nine month period prescribed by the Uniform Straight Bill of Lading, see 49 C.F.R. §§ 1035.1 , 1035.2(1985), and which other carriers were liable for under the pro rata agreements.”
Hath v. Alleghany Color Corp., 369 F. Supp. 2d 1116 (D. Ariz. 2005).
“3 Plaintiffs rebanee on 49 C.F.R. § 1035.1 and § 1035, App. A is also misplaced, since those regulations only concern transportation by rail or water Finally, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant did not properly advise Plaintiff of his arbitration rights concerning his damage claim…”
EMCO Corp. v. Miller Transfer & Rigging Co. (6th Cir. 2023).
“The bills of lading covering the Cargo were (1) from Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio to Dover, Ohio, which included shipment and packaging of the Cargo; (2) from Dover, Ohio to Baltimore, Maryland; and (3) from Baltimore, Maryland to Hallein, Austria.”
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.