49 U.S.C. § 10741

Prohibitions against discrimination by rail carriers

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 49 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a)(1) A rail carrier providing transportation or service subject to the jurisdiction of the Board under this part may not subject a person, place, port, or type of traffic to unreasonable discrimination.(2) For purposes of this section, a rail carrier engages in unreasonable discrimination when it charges or receives from a person a different compensation for a service rendered, or to be rendered, in transportation the rail carrier may perform under this part than it charges or receives from another person for performing a like and contemporaneous service in the transportation of a like kind of traffic under substantially similar circumstances.(b) This section shall not apply to—(1) contracts described in section 10709 of this title;(2) rail rates applicable to different routes; or(3) discrimination against the traffic of another carrier providing transportation by any mode.(c) Differences between rates, classifications, rules, and practices of rail carriers do not constitute a violation of this section if such differences result from different services provided by rail carriers.(Added Pub. L. 104–88, title I, § 102(a), Dec. 29, 1995, 109 Stat. 819.)Editorial NotesPrior Provisions

A prior section 10741, Pub. L. 95–473, Oct. 17, 1978, 92 Stat. 1390; Pub. L. 96–296, § 33(d), July 1, 1980, 94 Stat. 825; Pub. L. 96–448, title II, § 212, Oct. 14, 1980, 94 Stat. 1912; Pub. L. 99–521, § 7(h), Oct. 22, 1986, 100 Stat. 2995, related to prohibitions against discrimination by common carriers, prior to the general amendment of this subtitle by Pub. L. 104–88, § 102(a). See sections 10741 and 15505 of this title.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date

Section effective Jan. 1, 1996, except as otherwise provided in Pub. L. 104–88, see section 2 of Pub. L. 104–88, set out as a note under section 1301 of this title.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 75 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1978–2023 · leading case: Maislin Indus., U. S., Inc. v. Primary Steel, Inc., 497 U.S. 116 (1990).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Maislin Indus., U. S., Inc. v. Primary Steel, Inc., 497 U.S. 116 (1990). · cites it 2× “See 49 U. S. C. § 10741 (1982 ed.). As we stated in Armour Packing Co.”

Harborlite Corp. v. Interstate Com. Comm'n & United States of Am., S. Pac. Transp. Co., Intervenor, 613 F.2d 1088 (D.C. Cir. 1979). · cites it 4× “TAMM, Circuit Judge: In this case, we review a decision of the Interstate Commerce Commission dismissing a complaint that alleged unlawful rate discrimination in violation of section 3(1) of the Interstate Commerce Act, 49 U.S.C.A. § 10741 (b) (West Spec.Pamph.”

North Penn Transfer, Inc. v. Victaulic Co. of Am., 859 F. Supp. 154 (E.D. Pa. 1994). · cites it 2× “See 49 U.S.C. §§ 10741 (a), 10762. I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY This action arises out of a relationship between North Penn Transfer and Victaulie in which North Penn Transfer transported property on behalf of Victaulie on numerous occasions between the dates of…”

Sec. Servs., Inc. v. Kmart Corp., 511 U.S. 431 (1994). · cites it 2× “, at 130 (citing 49 U. S. C. § 10741 ). Thus, we held that any bankruptcy trustee or debtor-in-possession was entitled to recover for undercharges based on effective, filed rates.”

Fed. Carr. Cas. P 84,020 in Re Olympia Holding Corp., Debtors. Lloyd T. Whitaker v. Frito-Lay, Inc., a Delaware Corp., 88 F.3d 952 (11th Cir. 1996). · cites it 3× “7 See 49 U.S.C. § 10741 . The filed rate doctrine is designed to further this objective by foreclosing the possibility that carriers maintain one rate on file while either negotiating another (secret) lower rate with some shippers or providing those shippers with illegal rebates…”

USX Corp. v. Adriatic Ins. Co., 99 F. Supp. 2d 593 (W.D. Pa. 2000). · cites it 2× “49 U.S.C. § 10741 (a) (1982). The second provision provided: “a [railroad] .”

G. & T. Terminal Packaging Co., Inc. & Anthony Spinale v. Consol. Rail Corp., 830 F.2d 1230 (3rd Cir. 1987). · cites it 3× “See 49 U.S.C. § 10741 . An aggrieved shipper may seek relief from unreasonable discrimination by filing a complaint with the Commission pursuant to 49 U.”

DHX, INC. v. Surface Transp. Bd., 501 F.3d 1080 (9th Cir. 2007). · cites it 2× “Prior to the ICCTA, joint rail/water and motor/water rates for the noncontiguous domestic trade were subject to the rail and motor anti-discrimination provisions in former 49 U.S.C. § 10741 (repealed 1995). Port-to-port rates were governed by the anti-discrimination provisions…”

Thurston Motor Lines, Inc. v. Jordan K. Rand, Ltd., 460 U.S. 533 (1983). “The complaint also alleged that the action arose under the Interstate Commerce Act, 49 U. S. C. § 10741 (a) (1976 ed., Supp. V), and that the District Court had jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.”

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). “§ 316 (d), now codified at 49 U.S.C. § 10741 , held that a private right of action exists in such cases and that in a proper case punitive damages and damages for mental distress may be recovered.”

Bloomer Shippers Ass'n v. Illinois Cent. Gulf R.R. Co., 655 F.2d 772 (7th Cir. 1981). · cites it 2× “The two actions were consolidated, and on December 5, 1978, an Administrative Law Judge denied the abandonment application and found that Illinois Central had violated 49 U.S.C. §§ 10741 and 11101. 1 He ordered Illinois Central to upgrade the Bloomer Line, but did not award…”

Nat'l Commc'ns Ass'n v. AT & T Corp., 238 F.3d 124 (2d Cir. 2001). “§ 1374 (b), the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887 (“ICA”), 49 U.S.C. §§ 10741 (a) and (b), and the CA, and it held that the shifting of the “affirmative burden of showing .”

Show all 75 citing cases →

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.