49 C.F.R. § 1035.2
Modification of front of uniform bill of lading
Notwithstanding any other provision of § 1035.1(a), with respect to the information called for, the front portion only (appendix A to this part) of a bill of lading may deviate from the language prescribed in this part so long as the deviation conforms with approved national standards for the electronic data interchange or other commercial requirements for bill of lading information; provided that no such deviation in the language shall affect the obligations of any shipper to provide information absent the consent of such shipper nor shall such deviation be deemed to alter any rights or obligations conferred by statute or regulation on either carriers or shippers with respect to the preparation or issuance of bills of lading.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4
cases, 1986–2005 · leading case: Am. Rock Salt Co. v. Norfolk S. Corp., 387 F. Supp. 2d 197 (W.D.N.Y. 2005).
Am. Rock Salt Co. v. Norfolk S. Corp., 387 F. Supp. 2d 197 (W.D.N.Y. 2005). “49 C.F.R. § 1035.2 , App. B, § 2(b). Defendants contend that ARSCO did not file a written claim (which set forth shipments as far back as June 11, 1999, see Dkt.”
Adelman v. Hub City Los Angeles Terminal, Inc., 856 F. Supp. 1544 (N.D. Ala. 1994). “671 , Appendix B § 2(b), as amended 49 C.F.R. § 1035.2 Appendix D; see also East Texas Motor Freight Lines v.”
Ins. Co. of North Am. v. G.I. Trucking Co., 783 F. Supp. 1251 (N.D. Cal. 1991). “§ 11707 (a), and the regulations promulgated thereunder, 49 C.F.R. § 1035.2 , (ICC regulations), and is therefore barred from bringing this action.”
Reichhold Chemicals, Inc. v. United States, 11 Cl. Ct. 150 (Ct. Cl. 1986). “); 49 C.F.R. § 1035.2 Appendix D (1985). Reich-hold claims that this action is governed by the Tucker Act six-year statute of limitations in 28 U.”
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.