49 U.S.C. § 10708
Rail cost adjustment factor
Provisions similar to those in this section were contained in section 10712 of this title prior to the general amendment of this subtitle by Pub. L. 104–88, § 102(a).
A prior section 10708, Pub. L. 95–473,
Section effective
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 32
cases, 1979–2009 · leading case: Maislin Indus., U. S., Inc. v. Primary Steel, Inc., 497 U.S. 116 (1990).
Maislin Indus., U. S., Inc. v. Primary Steel, Inc., 497 U.S. 116 (1990). “See § 11, codified at 49 U. S. C. § 10708 (1982 ed.). More importantly, the MCA also allows motor carriers to operate as both common carriers and contract carriers.”
Interstate Com. Comm'n v. Am. Trucking Associations, 467 U.S. 354 (1984). “, 49 U. S. C. § 10708 (a)(1) (suspension of proposed rates), the absence of limitation in § 10762(e) suggests that the Commission may reject both proposed and effective tariffs.”
Sec. Servs., Inc. v. Kmart Corp., 511 U.S. 431 (1994). “" 49 U. S. C. § 10708 (b) (emphasis added).”
Sw. Bell Tel. Co. v. Oklahoma Corp. Comm'n, 873 P.2d 1001 (Okla. 1994). “§ 10704 (a) (railroad) and 49 U.S.C. § 10708 (a)(2) (motor carriers); (4) Civil Aeronautics Board [CAB], 49 U.”
S. Motor Carriers Rate Conf. v. United States of Am. & Interstate Com. Comm'n, 773 F.2d 1561 (11th Cir. 1985). “While not altering the Commission’s duty to adjudicate formal complaints concerning rate reasonableness, Congress sharply curtailed the Commission’s discretion to suspend individually set rates that fell within the liberally defined ZORF.”
Cent. & S. Motor Freight Tariff Ass'n, Inc. v. United States of Am. & Interstate Com. Comm'n, 777 F.2d 722 (D.C. Cir. 1985). “§ 10706 , the authority collectively to docket and publish general rate increases is found at 49 U.S.C. § 10708 (b)(6), which is implemented by the Commission’s general rate increase regulations.”
VEPCO v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., 683 S.E.2d 517 (Va. 2009). “See 49 U.S.C. § 10708 (2006); see also Burlington N.”
United States v. City of Fulton, 475 U.S. 657 (1986). “§204 ; Interstate Commerce Act, § 15(7), 49 U. S. C. § 10708 . See generally W. Jones, Cases and Materials on Regulated Industries 122-126 (2d ed.”
Regular Common Carrier Conf. v. United States, 793 F.2d 376 (D.C. Cir. 1986). “…impossible for the public to assert its right to challenge the lawfulness of existing or proposed rates, see 49 U.S.C.A. §§ 10708 (a)(1) & 11701(a). The matter is placed beyond all doubt, however, by the fact that § 10761 contains its own waiver provision, authorizing…”
Am. Trucking Ass'n, Inc. v. United States of Am. & Interstate Com. Comm'n, 688 F.2d 1337 (11th Cir. 1982). “The suspension provision, 49 U.S.C. § 10708 , requires by its own terms that this action be taken before the rate becomes effective.”
Square D Co. v. Niagara Frontier Tariff Bureau, Inc., 760 F.2d 1347 (2d Cir. 1985). “For example, § 11 of the Motor Carrier Act of 1980, the most directly relevant legislation here, added subsection (d) to 49 U.S.C. § 10708 . This bars the Commission from interfering with a rate proposed by individual carriers on the basis that it is too high or too low if the…”
Am. Trucking Ass'n, Inc. v. United States of Am. & Interstate Com. Comm'n, 755 F.2d 1292 (7th Cir. 1985). “(1980 Act, § 11, codified at 49 U.S.C. § 10708 (d)). This change did not alter the Commission’s duty to adjudicate formal complaints concerning rate reasonableness, but Congress sharply curtailed the Commission’s discretion to suspend individually set rates that fell within the…”
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.