49 C.F.R. § 174.1
Purpose and scope
This part prescribes requirements in addition to those contained in parts 171, 172, 173, and 179 of this subchapter, to be observed with respect to the transportation of hazardous materials in or on rail cars.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6
cases, 1948–1969 · leading case: Putts v. Com. Stand. Ins., 173 F.2d 153 (10th Cir. 1949).
Putts v. Com. Stand. Ins., 173 F.2d 153 (10th Cir. 1949). “See 49 CFR 174.1. On August 7, 1947, while the Chevrolet truck was being operated by an employee of insured, at a point more than fifty miles from Deming, a collision occurred between it and an automobile being driven by Alvin Flannes, accompanied by Estelene Flannes, his wife,…”
Walters v. Dunlap, 250 F. Supp. 76 (W.D. Pa. 1966). “§ 315; 49 C.F.R. § 174.1 . In addition, if an ambiguity exists in the language of the phrase “exclusively in the business of the named insured”, we think, in accord with the accepted rule of construction, that the language should be construed strictly against the insurer and in…”
Consol. Sys., Inc. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 411 F.2d 157 (5th Cir. 1969). “Pursuant to ICC regulations for motor carriers, 49 C.F.R. § 174.1 -.2, Citizens Casualty, acting as surety for Alterman, filed with the ICC a $25,000 bond obligating the surety to stand behind any judgment recovered against Alterman *160 “for bodily injuries to or death of any…”
Vincent v. United States, 58 A.2d 829 (D.C. 1948). “9 Appellant in his brief also urged several jurisdictional points, but they were not urged on oral argument, and we find no merit in them. Affirmed. Act of August 9, 1935, C.”
Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, Inc. v. Bd. of Pub. Util. Com'rs, 107 F. Supp. 521 (D.N.J. 1952). “spelled out in the Interstate Commerce 'Commission Regulations, 49 C.F.R. § 174.1 et seq., indicates a purpose of protecting claims of all persons for personal injury or property damage caused by negligent operation, maintenance or use of interstate motor carriers.”
Rosalis v. Universal Distributors, Inc., 21 F.R.D. 169 (D. Conn. 1957). “49 C.F.R. Section 174.1. Hence I do not think the prejudice argument should prevail.”
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.