46 U.S.C. § 41106

Marine terminal operators

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 46 CasesGoogle Scholar

A marine terminal operator may not—(1) agree with another marine terminal operator or with a common carrier to boycott, or unreasonably discriminate in the provision of terminal services to, a common carrier or ocean tramp;(2) give any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage or impose any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage with respect to any person; or(3) unreasonably refuse to deal or negotiate.(Pub. L. 109–304, § 7, Oct. 6, 2006, 120 Stat. 1543.)

Historical and Revision Notes
Revised Section	Source (U.S. Code)	Source (Statutes at Large)
41106(1)	46 App.:1709(d)(2).	Pub. L. 98–237, § 10(d)(2), (3) (related to (b)(10)), (4), Mar. 20, 1984, 98 Stat. 77; Pub. L. 105–258, title I, § 109(c), Oct. 14, 1998, 112 Stat. 1910.
41106(2)	46 App.:1709(d)(4).
41106(3)	46 App.:1709(d)(3) (related to (b)(10)).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases, 2009–2018 · leading case: Maher Terminals, LLC v. Fed. Mar. Comm'n, 816 F.3d 888 (D.C. Cir. 2016).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Maher Terminals, LLC v. Fed. Mar. Comm'n, 816 F.3d 888 (D.C. Cir. 2016). · cites it 2× “It alleged that the Port Authority had violated 46 U.S.C. § 41106 (2) in offering an “unreasonable preference” to APM-Maersk.”

Fed. Mar. Com'n v. City of Los Angeles, California, 607 F. Supp. 2d 192 (D.D.C. 2009). “46 U.S.C. § 41106 (2). 9 . These enumerated equitable remedies are FMC's sole available remedies under the Shipping Act for a Section 6(g) violation.”

W. Holding Grp., Inc. v. Mayagüez Port Comm'n, 611 F. Supp. 2d 149 (D.P.R. 2009). · cites it 3× “1, at 27, ¶ 89), unreasonable refusals to negotiate, and unreasonable discrimination, thus causing undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantages to plaintiffs in violation of 46 U.S.C. § 41106 (l)-(3). Plaintiffs also allege violation of their Constitutional rights under the…”

Santa Fe Disc. Cruise Parking, Inc. v. Fed. Mar. Comm'n & United States, 889 F.3d 795 (D.C. Cir. 2018). “" 46 U.S.C. § 41106 (2). A disadvantaged party may bring a Section 41106(2) rate-discrimination complaint against the marine terminal operator before the Federal Maritime Commission.”

Fed. Mar. Comm'n v. City of Los Angeles, California (D.D.C. 2009). “46 U.S.C. § 41106 (2). 6 agreement is likely to have the effect described in Section 6(g), a permanent injunction.”

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.