49 U.S.C. § 102
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 24
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1927–2024 · leading case: Masias v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 634 F.3d 1283 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Masias v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 634 F.3d 1283 (Fed. Cir. 2011). “” 49 U.S.C. § 102 (e) (1994). As noted, the Coast Guard was subsequently transferred to the Department of Homeland Security.”
Pac. Micronesian Lines, Inc. v. New Zealand Ins. Co., Ltd., 366 F.2d 333 (9th Cir. 1966). “Appellant contended that recovery by appellee was governed by the provisions of the Uniform Bills of Lading Act incorporated in section 2128g of the Guam Civil Code, or by the Bills of Lading provisions of 49 U.S.C. § 102 . According to appellant’s theory, under either of these…”
Fed. Carr. Cas. P 84,057 Mark L. Gordon, as Adm'r of the Est. of Ruth Slavin, & Rachelle Gordon, & v. United Van Lines, Inc., &, 130 F.3d 282 (7th Cir. 1997). “) Their suit asserted breach of the contract for carriage (Count I); liability under the Carmack Amendment (Count II); liability under the Bill of Lading Act, 49 U.S.C. § 102 (Count III); common law fraud (Count IV); violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive…”
Swinomish Indian Tribal Cmty. v. Bnsf Ry. Co., 951 F.3d 1142 (9th Cir. 2020). “” 49 U.S.C. § 102 (f)(2)(B). The Indian Right of Way Act is a statutory mechanism by which the United States fulfills some of those responsibilities.”
GAC Com. Corp. v. Wilson, 271 F. Supp. 242 (S.D.N.Y. 1967). “Under § 22 of the Act, 49 U.S.C. § 102 , “[i]f a bill of lading has been issued by a carrier or on his behalf by an agent or employee * *, the carrier shall be liable to * * * the holder of an order bill, who has given value in good faith, relying upon the description therein of…”
Portland Fish Co., a Corp. v. States S.S. Co., a Corp., 510 F.2d 628 (9th Cir. 1974). “Section 22 of the Pomerene Act, 49 U.S.C. § 102 , 5 amounts to a codification of the estoppel principle and would be dispositive here, 6 were it not *632 for the inapplicability of the Pomerene Act to bills of lading issued in foreign ports.”
Strohmeyer & Arpe Co. v. Am. Line S. S. Corp., 97 F.2d 360 (2d Cir. 1938). “It is argued, however, that recovery may be had under § 22 of the Bill of Lading Act ( 49 U.S.C. § 102 , 49 U.S.C.A. § 102 ). That act provides: “Liability for nonreceipt or misdescription of goods.”
T. J. Stevenson & Co. v. 81,193 Bags of Flour, 629 F.2d 338 (5th Cir. 1980). “Pomerene Act § 6, 49 U.S.C.A. § 102 . But the contract in this case was one of private rather than public carriage.”
The Carso, 43 F.2d 736 (S.D.N.Y. 1930). “If it did apply here, this opinion would have been unnecessary, because it is provided (49 USCA § 102), as follows: “Liability for nonreceipt or misdescription of goods.”
Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co. v. Stephens Nat. Bank of Fremont, 75 F.2d 398 (8th Cir. 1935). “49, § 102 [49 USCA § 102]) provides: “If a bill of lading has been issued by a carrier or on his behalf by an agent or employee the scope of whose actual or apparent authority includes the receiving of goods and issuing bills of lading therefor for transportation in commerce…”
Robinson Elec. Co. v. Capitol Trucking Corp., 79 A.2d 123 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1951). “Plaintiff was dealing on the basis of the goods rather than on the basis of the bill.”
Pac. Micronesian Line, Inc. v. New Zealand Ins. Co., Ltd., 397 F.2d 236 (9th Cir. 1968). “In our previous decision we held that 49 U.S.C. § 102 1 and Guam Civ.Code § 2128g 2 were applicable to the controversy, and we stated, *237 “The effect of these two statutory-provisions is the same: In certain limited circumstances they permit a carrier to avoid liability for…”
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.