THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT
Act 254 of 1933
478.7 Conduct of operations by UCR motor carrier, broker, freight forwarder, leasing company, or other person subject to federal unified carrier registration act of 2005; meeting obligations of unified carrier registration plan and agreement required; deposit in truck safety fund.
Sec. 7.
(1) A UCR motor carrier, motor private carrier, broker, freight forwarder, leasing company, or other person subject to the requirements of section 4305 of the federal unified carrier registration act of 2005, 49 USC 14504a, shall not conduct operations or otherwise provide transportation services in this state without first having registered under, and met the obligations imposed by, the unified carrier registration plan and agreement.
(2) Not less than $750,000.00 or 10% of the fees collected pursuant to this section, whichever is greater, shall be deposited in the truck safety fund established in section 25 of 1951 PA 51, MCL 247.675.
History: Add. 1988, Act 347, Imd. Eff. Oct. 25, 1988 ;-- Am. 1989, Act 221, Imd. Eff. Dec. 13, 1989 ;-- Am. 2008, Act 584, Imd. Eff. Jan. 16, 2009
Compiler's Notes:
Enacting section 2 of Act 347 of 1988, which provided as follows:
“Section 2. This amendatory act shall take effect January 1, 1989.”
was repealed by enacting section 2 of Act 369 of 1988, Imd. Eff. Dec. 21, 1988.
Notes of Decisions
Yellow Freight Sys., Inc. v. State, 627 N.W.2d 236 (Mich. 2001).
· cites it 10× “That the statute does not expressly mention reciprocity agreements does not change the fact that reciprocity agreements were an inherent part of the fee system in place on November 15, 1991.”
Yellow Transp., Inc v. State of Michigan (On Remand), 669 N.W.2d 553 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 10× “In 1991, Congress passed the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA), PL 102-240, which substantially amended 49 USC 11506 [2] and *555 directed the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) to reform the licensing and registration system existing in the states.”
Westlake Transp., Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 662 N.W.2d 784 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 3× “MCL 478.7. In February 1995, intervening plaintiffs filed their complaint, alleging that the intrastate-decal fee violated the Commerce Clause, US Const, art I, § 8, cl 3, and were subsequently granted the right to intervene.”
Yellow Freight Sys., Inc. v. Michigan, 585 N.W.2d 762 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 4× “§ 478.7(4); M.S.A. § 22.565(1)(4) in excess of the amount allowed by federal law, specifically the singlestate registration system (SSRS).”
Mid-Con Freight Sys., Inc. v. Michigan Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 545 U.S. 440 (2005).
“5-6; MCL § 478.7(4) (West 2002). Hence such a fee does not represent an effort somehow to circumvent the limitations imposed in connection with federal laws governing State Registration of Federal Permits.”
Schneider Natl. Carriers, Inc. v. State, Dept. of Treasury, 637 N.W.2d 838 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 3× “” MCL 478.7 provides: (1) A motor carrier shall not engage in the interstate or foreign transportation of property for compensation without first having registered with the commission and paid the required registration and vehicle fees.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 478.7(4) — 4 cases
Yellow Freight Sys., Inc. v. State, 627 N.W.2d 236 (Mich. 2001).
“That the statute does not expressly mention reciprocity agreements does not change the fact that reciprocity agreements were an inherent part of the fee system in place on November 15, 1991.”
Yellow Transp., Inc v. State of Michigan (On Remand), 669 N.W.2d 553 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003).
“In 1991, Congress passed the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA), PL 102-240, which substantially amended 49 USC 11506 [2] and *555 directed the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) to reform the licensing and registration system existing in the states.”
Yellow Freight Sys., Inc. v. Michigan, 585 N.W.2d 762 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998).
“§ 478.7(4); M.S.A. § 22.565(1)(4) in excess of the amount allowed by federal law, specifically the singlestate registration system (SSRS).”
Mid-Con Freight Sys., Inc. v. Michigan Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 545 U.S. 440 (2005).
“5-6; MCL § 478.7(4) (West 2002). Hence such a fee does not represent an effort somehow to circumvent the limitations imposed in connection with federal laws governing State Registration of Federal Permits.”
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.