49 C.F.R. § 390.1
Purpose
This part establishes general applicability, definitions, general requirements and information as they pertain to persons subject to this chapter.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1972–2025 · leading case: Sinclair v. Beacon Gasoline Co., 447 F. Supp. 5 (W.D. La. 1976).
Sinclair v. Beacon Gasoline Co., 447 F. Supp. 5 (W.D. La. 1976). “See 49 C.F.R. § 390.1 , et seq. While they could not have the effect of law during the entire course of the instant case, they illustrate the existence of the power in the Secretary so to do.”
Global Hawk Ins. v. Le, 79 Cal. Comp. Cases 623 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014). “(See 49 C.F.R. § 390.1 .) “For the purpose of the Endorsement, the district court concluded that Perry was an employee of Sunset’s ‘[a]s a matter of law.”
Gaibis v. Werner Cont'l, Inc., 565 F. Supp. 1538 (W.D. Pa. 1983). “olved in the pending civil action and certified the following question for investigation and resolution in accordance with its rules of practice and procedure: Whether the dispatch and logging procedure followed by Hall’s Motor Transit Company for its over-the-road drivers at…”
Rennert v. Great Dane Ltd. P'ship, 543 F.3d 914 (7th Cir. 2008). “The change that would have been most likely to prompt a corresponding adjustment in Illinois’s policy about truck regulations and underride liability was the promulgation of regulations for rear guards by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in 1996, see 49 C.F.R.…”
Adams v. Texas & Pac. Motor Transp. Co., 408 F. Supp. 156 (E.D. La. 1975). “See generally 49 C.F.R. § 390.1 et seq. [Defendant Exhibit No.”
Lindsey v. Navistar Int'l Transp. Corp., 150 F.3d 1307 (11th Cir. 1998). “” 49 C.F.R. § 390.1 (a). Navistar argues that 49 C.”
Perry v. Harco Nat'l Ins., 129 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 1997). “See 49 C.F.R. § 390.1 . For the purpose of the Endorsement, the district court concluded that Perry was an employee of Sunset’s “[a]s a matter of law.”
Dan v. State of New York (N.D.N.Y. 2025). “However, 49 C.F.R. § 390.1 et seq., [] sets definitions for the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration's promulgated regulations for commercial vehicles.”
Jose Edward Villagomez v. State (Tex. App. 2009). “See 49 C.F.R. §§ 390.1 -.37 (2008). These regulations do not specifically define "farm vehicle," but they do contain these pertinent definitions: Farm vehicle driver means a person who drives only a commercial motor vehicle that is-- (a) Controlled and operated by a farmer as a…”
Jose Edward Villagomez v. State (Tex. App. 2009). “See 49 C.F.R. §§ 390.1 -.37 (2008). These regulations do not specifically define “farm vehicle,” but they do contain these pertinent definitions: Farm vehicle driver means a person who drives only a commercial motor vehicle that is— (a) Controlled and operated by a farmer as a…”
Rennert, Shmuel v. Great Dane Ltd. (7th Cir. 2008). “The change that would have been most likely to prompt a corresponding adjustment in Illinois’s policy about truck regulations and underride liability was the promul- gation of regulations for rear guards by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in 1996, see 49…”
Fortner v. Tecchio Trucking, Inc., 597 F. Supp. 2d 755 (E.D. Tenn. 2009). “In addition, Plaintiffs claim Defendant is per se negligent for having violated the Federal Motor Carriers Safety Regulations (FMCSR), 49 C.F.R. § 390.1 et seq. Specifically, Plaintiffs contend Defendant violated 49 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.