49 U.S.C. § 10709
Contracts
Provisions similar to those in this section were contained in section 10713 of this title prior to the general amendment of this subtitle by Pub. L. 104–88, § 102(a).
Prior sections 10709 to 10713 were omitted in the general amendment of this subtitle by Pub. L. 104–88, § 102(a).
Section 10709, Pub. L. 95–473,
Section 10710, Pub. L. 95–473,
Section 10711, Pub. L. 95–473,
Section 10712, added Pub. L. 96–448, title II, § 206(a),
Section 10713, added Pub. L. 96–448, title II, § 208(a),
2015—Subsec. (h). Pub. L. 114–110 struck out subsec. (h) which related to certain contracts for the transportation of agricultural commodities.
1996—Subsec. (e). Pub. L. 104–287 substituted “
Section effective
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 96
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1979–2026 · leading case: Chartis Seguros Mexico, S.A. de C.V. v. HLI Rail & Rigging, LLC, 3 F. Supp. 3d 171 (S.D.N.Y. 2014).
Chartis Seguros Mexico, S.A. de C.V. v. HLI Rail & Rigging, LLC, 3 F. Supp. 3d 171 (S.D.N.Y. 2014). “However, rail carriers may limit their liability either by entering into a contract pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 10709 , which would not be covered by the Car-mack Amendment, or, if the contract is governed by the Carmack Amendment, by first effectively limiting their liability…”
Sompo Japan Ins. Co. of Am. v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., 540 F. Supp. 2d 486 (S.D.N.Y. 2008). “The answer hinges on whether certain contracts between the railroad carriers and the shipping companies were entered into pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 10709 , and, if so, whether the rail companies were required to offer the insureds an option for full liability under 49 U.”
Fayus Enter. v. BNSF Ry. Co., 602 F.3d 444 (D.C. Cir. 2010). “The traffic moves under railroad-shipper contracts that, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 10709 , are generally not subject to challenge before the Surface Transportation Board (“STB” or “Board”).”
Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd. v. Regal-Beloit Corp., 561 U.S. 89 (2010). “, dissenting out of Carmack under 49 U. S. C. §10709 , or whether Union Pacific first had to offer “K” Line, its contractual counterparty, Carmack-compliant terms under §10502.”
Babcock & Wilcox Co. v. Kansas City S. Ry. Co., 557 F.3d 134 (3rd Cir. 2009). “They argued that the agreement was not a common carrier transportation agreement under the ICA but a private contract entered into under 49 U.S.C. § 10709 3 . (Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss 3-5, Docket Entry No.”
Schoenmann Produce Co. v. Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 420 F. Supp. 2d 757 (S.D. Tex. 2006). “Plaintiffs moved to remand, asserting that the shipments were not governed by the Carmack Amendment, but by 49 U.S.C. § 10709 (1996). That statute allows parties to contract for rail shipments with different rates and conditions than the Carmack Amendment requires.”
W. Coal Traffic League & Its Members v. United States of Am. & Interstate Com. Comm'n, 694 F.2d 378 (5th Cir. 1983). “Section 205(a) expressly recites that this shall not be construed as altering the meaning of the term “market dominance” as defined in 49 U.S.C. § 10709 (a). Pub.L. No. ' 96-448, § 205(a)(3)(B), 94 Stat.”
Pci Transp., Inc. v. Fort Worth & W. R.R. Co., 418 F.3d 535 (5th Cir. 2005). “PCI argues nonetheless that its dispute with FWWR is purely over FWWR’s compliance with the contract, and that, under 49 U.S.C. § 10709 , such contracts are not subject to the ICCTA and thus not under the jurisdiction of the STB.”
W. Coal Traffic League & Its Members v. United States of Am. & Interstate Com. Comm'n, 719 F.2d 772 (5th Cir. 1983). “By a new provision contained in the Staggers Act, 49 U.S.C. § 10709 (d), Congress required the ICC to deregulate a rail rate insofar as the carrier’s rate of return falls below a specified percentage of the costs incurred by the carrier in providing the service.”
Burlington N. R.R. Co. v. Surface Transp. Bd. & the United States of Am., West Texas Utils. Co., Intervenor, 75 F.3d 685 (D.C. Cir. 1996). “at 817-18 (to be codified at 49 U.S.C. § 10709 (b), (c)(1) & (g)) (stating terms of agency review of contracts and exempting contract transport from general agency oversight).”
Regal-Beloit Corp. v. Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd., 557 F.3d 985 (9th Cir. 2009). “” The MITA also (1) prohibited the interpretation of its terms under foreign law; (2) explicitly provided that *990 “[t]his MITA and any agreements, price documents or contracts that reference this MITA have been made under 49 U.S.C. § 10709”; and (3) expressly established that…”
Glenn Hunter & Assocs., Inc. v. Union Pac. R.R., 135 F. App'x 849 (6th Cir. 2005). “The contract quote and contract rate issued to Hunter for the movement at issue specifically states that the movement will be governed by 49 U.S.C. § 10709 , which ... removes all federal regulation, intervention, jurisdiction, and the Interstate Commerce Act itself from 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.