49 C.F.R. § 376.1

Applicability

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

The regulations in this part apply to the following actions by motor carriers registered with the Secretary to transport property under 49 U.S.C. subtitle IV, part B:

(a) The leasing of equipment with which to perform transportation regulated by the Secretary.

(b) The leasing of equipment to motor private carrier or shippers.

(c) The interchange of equipment between for-hire motor carriers in the performance of transportation regulated by the Secretary.

[44 FR 4681, Jan. 23, 1979. Redesignated at 61 FR 54707, Oct. 21, 1996, as amended at 62 FR 15423, Apr. 1, 1997; 81 FR 68346, Oct. 4, 2016]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 28 cases (15 in the last 5 years), 2000–2026 · leading case: Sharpless v. Sim, 209 S.W.3d 825 (Tex. App. 2007).
Sharpless v. Sim, 209 S.W.3d 825 (Tex. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “See 49 C.F.R. § 376.1 et. seq. (2005). As a result, the issue of Sharpless’ employment was not submitted to the jury.”
Thomas Mervyn v. Atlas Van Lines, Inc., 882 F.3d 680 (7th Cir. 2018). “49 C.F.R. § 376.1 . The regulations require that the lease be in writing and contain specific provisions.”
Owner Operator Indep. Drivers Ass'n v. FFE Transp. Servs., Inc., 245 F.R.D. 253 (N.D. Tex. 2007). · cites it 2× “Plaintiffs brought this action against FFE under 49 C.F.R. § 376.1 , alleging that FFE violated that statute by using lease agreements (ICAs) that contain unlawful provisions or omit required provisions, improperly managing escrow funds and charge-backs, requiring Plaintiffs to…”
Owner-Operator Indep. Drivers Ass'n v. Landstar Sys., Inc., 541 F.3d 1278 (11th Cir. 2008). “The Owner-Operators have appealed from the judgment entered against them rejecting their claims that Landstar violated 49 C.F.R. § 376.12 (d) and (h), provisions of the Truth-in-Leasing regulations, 49 C.”
Owner-Operator Indep. Drivers Ass'n v. Landstar Sys., Inc., 622 F.3d 1307 (11th Cir. 2008). “The Owner-Operators have appealed from the judgment entered against them rejecting their claims that Landstar violated 49 C.F.R. § 376.12 (d) and (h), provisions of the Truth-in-Leasing regulations, 49 C.”
Port Drivers Fed'n 18, Inc. v. All Saints Express, Inc., 757 F. Supp. 2d 443 (D.N.J. 2010). “49 C.F.R. §§ 376.1 , et. seq. A person aggrieved by a motor carrier’s non-compliance with the statutory and regulatory regime created by Title 49 may seek damages and equitable relief under 49 U.”
Owner-Operator Indep. Drivers Ass'n v. Arctic Express, Inc., 87 F. Supp. 2d 820 (S.D. Ohio 2000). “Part 376 because neither D & A nor the Members are “motor carriers registered with the Secretary [of Transportation] to transport property” as required by 49 C.F.R. § 376.1 . In addition, the Defendants contend that the “maintenance fund” in question is not an escrow fund as…”
Owner-Operator Indep. Drivers v. Landstar Sys., 622 F.3d 1307 (11th Cir. 2010). “The Owner-Operators have appealed from the judgment entered against them rejecting their claims that Landstar violated 49 C.F.R. § 376.12 (d) and (h), provisions of the Truth-in-Leasing regulations, 49 C.”
C.R. England, Inc. v. The Dep't of Emp. Sec., 2014 IL App (1st) 122809 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014). “¶ 16 Under federal law (see 49 C.F.R. § 376.1 et seq. (2012)), in order to operate the truck on behalf of CRE, Mr.”
Luxama v. Ironbound Express, Inc. (D.N.J. 2021). · cites it 3× “Plaintiffs allege claims for breach of contract and violations of the federal Truth-in-Leasing regulations, 49 C.F.R. § 376.1 et seq. Currently pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ third motion for class certification.”
Johnson v. Diakon Logistics (N.D. Ill. 2018). · cites it 2× “Truth-in-Leasing Regulations Preemption Issue Diakon next argues that Plaintiffs’ claims are preempted by the Truth-in-Leasing Regulations (“Regulations”), 49 C.F.R. § 376.1 et seq. The Court’s preemption analysis “begins with a presumption against preemption and focuses first…”
Hall Et Al. v. B. H. Transfer Co., 793 S.E.2d 612 (Ga. Ct. App. 2016). “”) on the plaintiffs’ claim for violations of the disclosure requirements of the Truth-in-Leasing regulations, 49 CFR § 376.1 et seq., promulgated under the federal Motor Carrier Act, 49 USC § 14101 et seq.”
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.