49 U.S.C. § 1
SHORT TITLE.
“This Act may be cited as the ‘Gerardo Hernandez Airport Security Act of 2015’.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1,229
cases, 1911–2018 · leading case: Alabama Pub. Serv. Comm'n v. S. Ry. Co., 341 U.S. 341 (1951).
Alabama Pub. Serv. Comm'n v. S. Ry. Co., 341 U.S. 341 (1951). “Appellee conducts an interstate business over the same tracks and by means of the same trains involved in this case, and such interstate activities are regulated by the Federal Interstate Commerce Commission, 49 U. S. C. §§ 1 et seq. But, it has long been held that this…”
Trans Alaska Pipeline Rate Cases, 436 U.S. 631 (1978). “” Part I of the Interstate Commerce Act, 24 Stat. 379 , as amended, 49 U. S. C. §§ 1-27 (1970 ed.”
Georgia v. Pennsylvania R.R., 324 U.S. 439 (1945). “900 , 49 U.S.C. § 1 (4)) it is "the duty of every common carrier subject to this chapter to provide and furnish transportation upon reasonable request therefor, and to establish reasonable through routes with other such carriers, and just and reasonable rates, fares, charges,…”
Interstate Com. Comm'n v. Baltimore & Annapolis R.R., 398 F. Supp. 454 (D. Maryland 1975). “Alco’s complaint alleging violations by defendants of 49 U.S.C. §§ 1 (18) — (20) and requesting permanent injunctive relief only was filed the same day.”
United States v. Florida East Coast Ry. Co., 410 U.S. 224 (1973). “379 , as amended, 49 U. S. C. § 1 (14) (a), required the Commission in a proceeding such as this to act in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.”
Interstate Com. Comm'n, Appellant-Appellee v. Chicago & North W. Transp. Co. & Larry S. Provo, Appellees-Appellants, 533 F.2d 1025 (8th Cir. 1976). “The Interstate Commerce Commission instituted this action pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 1 (20) seeking preliminary and permanent injunctive relief against the Chicago and North Western Transportation Company (North Western) and its president, Larry S.”
New Haven Inclusion Cases, 399 U.S. 392 (1970). “[1] The two railroads formally sought permission to merge under the Interstate Commerce Act, 49 U. S. C. § 1 et seq., on March 9, 1962.”
Potomac Elec. Power Co. v. United States of Am. & Interstate Com. Comm'n, Consol. Rail Corp., Intervenor, 584 F.2d 1058 (D.C. Cir. 1978). “This refusal, PEPCO alleges, violates section 1(4) of the Interstate Commerce Act (Act), 49 U.S.C. § 1 (4) (1970), which states that “[i]t shall be the duty of every common carrier .”
Verizon Commc'ns Inc. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 535 U.S. 467 (2002). “, Transportation Act of 1920, 49 U. S. C. § 1 (5) (1934 ed.). *478 All rates were subject to regulation this way: retail rates charged directly to the public and wholesale rates charged among businesses involved in providing the goods or services offered by the retail utility.”
S. Pac. Transp. Co. v. United States, 462 F. Supp. 1193 (E.D. Cal. 1978). “The Interstate Commerce Act regulates, inter alia, the common carrier’s duty to furnish transportation and establish through routes ( 49 U.S.C. § 1 (4)), the carrier’s duty to establish just and reasonable rates ( 49 U.”
Tampa Phosphate R.R. Co. v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co., 418 F.2d 387 (5th Cir. 1970). “We must decide whether a federal district court has the *390 power under 49 U.S.C.A. § 1 (20) 1 to issue an injunction against condemnation proceedings in state courts that are said to violate § 1(18) of the Interstate Commerce Act.”
United States v. Allegheny-Ludlum Steel Corp., 406 U.S. 742 (1972). “101 , 49 U. S. C. §1 (14) (a). The pertinent language of that Act provides: “The Commission may .”
— 49 U.S.C. § 1(1) — 2 cases
Valley & Siletz R.R. v. Flagg, 247 P.2d 639 (Or. 1952).
Canadian Pac. Ltd. v. United States, 379 F. Supp. 128 (D.D.C. 1974).
— 49 U.S.C. § 1(11) — 2 cases
S. Pac. Transp. Co. v. Dep't of Revenue, 9 Or. Tax 481 (Or. T.C. 1982).
Union Pac. R.R. Co. v. Dept. of Rev., 9 Or. Tax 501 (Or. T.C. 1982).
— 49 U.S.C. § 1(12) — 1 case
Potomac Elec. Power Co. v. United States of Am. & Interstate Com. Comm'n, Consol. Rail Corp., Intervenor, 584 F.2d 1058 (D.C. Cir. 1978). “This refusal, PEPCO alleges, violates section 1(4) of the Interstate Commerce Act (Act), 49 U.S.C. § 1 (4) (1970), which states that “[i]t shall be the duty of every common carrier .”
— 49 U.S.C. § 1(14) — 2 cases
Allegheny Ludlum Steel Corp. v. United States, 325 F. Supp. 352 (W.D. Pa. 1971).
Ann Arbor R.R. Co. v. United States, 358 F. Supp. 933 (E.D. Pa. 1973).
— 49 U.S.C. § 1(17) — 1 case
S. Pac. Co. v. Arizona Corp. Com'n, 404 P.2d 692 (Ariz. 1965).
— 49 U.S.C. § 1(18) — 16 cases
Mercury Motor Express, Inc. v. Norman C. Brinke, 475 F.2d 1086 (5th Cir. 1973).
Consol. Rail Corp. v. State of Ill., 423 F. Supp. 941 (Regl. Rail Reorg. Act 1976).
State of New Jersey v. United States, 168 F. Supp. 324 (D.N.J. 1959).
Zirn v. Hanover Bank, 215 F.2d 63 (2d Cir. 1954).
Arkansas-Best Freight Sys., Inc. v. United States, 364 F. Supp. 1239 (W.D. Ark. 1973).
— 49 U.S.C. § 1(20) — 4 cases
United States Feldspar Corp. v. United States, 38 F.2d 91 (N.D.N.Y. 1930).
Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co. v. United States, 35 F.2d 769 (S.D.W. Va 1929).
Interstate Com. Comm'n v. St. Johnsbury & Lamoille Cnty. R.R., 403 F. Supp. 903 (D. Vt. 1973).
Bd. of Pub. Util. Commissioners v. United States, 132 F. Supp. 379 (D.N.J. 1955).
— 49 U.S.C. § 1(21) — 1 case
Oregon-Washington R. & Nav. Co. v. United States, 47 F.2d 250 (D. Or. 1931).
— 49 U.S.C. § 1(22) — 2 cases
Wallower v. United States, 32 F.2d 524 (W.D. Mo. 1928).
Oregon-Washington R. & Nav. Co. v. United States, 47 F.2d 250 (D. Or. 1931).
— 49 U.S.C. § 1(3) — 5 cases
Repub. Arloading & Distrib. Co. v. Missouri Pac. R.R. Co., 302 F.2d 381 (8th Cir. 1962).
Charles J. Webb & Sons, Inc. v. Cent. R. Co. of New Jersey, 36 F.2d 702 (2d Cir. 1929).
Gilbertville Trucking Co. v. United States, 196 F. Supp. 351 (D. Mass. 1961).
Jarka Corp. v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 130 F.2d 804 (4th Cir. 1942).
Anderson v. Bigelow, 130 F.2d 460 (9th Cir. 1942).
— 49 U.S.C. § 1(4) — 10 cases
Pennsylvania R. Co. v. United States, 55 F. Supp. 473 (D.N.J. 1943).
Atl. Coast Line R. v. Baltimore & O. R., 12 F. Supp. 711 (D. Maryland 1935).
Interstate Com. Comm'n & S. Pac. Co., a Corp. v. The Martin Bros. Box Co., a Corp., 219 F.2d 811 (9th Cir. 1955).
Thompson v. Baltimore & OR Co., 59 F. Supp. 21 (E.D. Mo. 1945).
S. Pac. Transp. Co. v. Dep't of Revenue, 9 Or. Tax 481 (Or. T.C. 1982).
— 49 U.S.C. § 1(5) — 5 cases
Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Allis-Chalmers Mfg. Co., 335 F.2d 203 (7th Cir. 1964).
Baker v. United States, 338 F. Supp. 331 (E.D. Pa. 1972).
Chicago, I. & L. Ry. Co. v. Int'l Milling Co., 33 F.2d 636 (D. Minnesota 1929).
Pennsylvania R.R. v. United States, 199 F. Supp. 586 (E.D. Pa. 1961).
Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. United States, 51 F.2d 510 (N.D. Ill. 1931).
— 49 U.S.C. § 1(6) — 2 cases
Long Island Rail Road v. United States, 307 F. Supp. 988 (E.D.N.Y 1969).
Wallower v. United States, 32 F.2d 524 (W.D. Mo. 1928).
— 49 U.S.C. § 1(9) — 3 cases
S. Pac. Transp. Co. v. Dep't of Revenue, 9 Or. Tax 481 (Or. T.C. 1982).
Union Pac. R.R. Co. v. Dept. of Rev., 9 Or. Tax 501 (Or. T.C. 1982).
Missouri Pac. R. v. United States, 4 F. Supp. 449 (E.D. Ky. 1933).
— 49 U.S.C. § 1(a) — 1 case
United States v. Munson S.S. Line, 37 F.2d 681 (4th Cir. 1930).
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.