49 U.S.C. § 10744
Continuous carriage of freight
A rail carrier providing transportation or service subject to the jurisdiction of the Board under this part may not enter a combination or arrangement to prevent the carriage of freight from being continuous from the place of shipment to the place of destination whether by change of time schedule, carriage in different cars, or by other means. The carriage of freight by those rail carriers is considered to be a continuous carriage from the place of shipment to the place of destination when a break of bulk, stoppage, or interruption is not made in good faith for a necessary purpose, and with the intent of avoiding or unnecessarily interrupting the continuous carriage or of evading this part.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 33
cases, 1980–2017 · leading case: Friends of Eel River v. North Coast Ry. Auth., 399 P.3d 37 (Cal. 2017).
Friends of Eel River v. North Coast Ry. Auth., 399 P.3d 37 (Cal. 2017). “) The act prohibits rail carriers from improper obstruction of through traffic or freight ( 49 U.S.C. § 10744 ), and prohibits state or local tax discrimination against rail property.”
Ass'n of Irritated Residents v. Kern Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors, 225 Cal. Rptr. 3d 463 (Cal. Ct. App. 5th 2017). “( 49 U.S.C. §§ 10744 , 11501.) The ICCTA assigns administrative and regulatory duties to the Surface Transportation Board.”
Atlantis Express, Inc. v. Stand. Transp. Servs., Inc., 955 F.2d 529 (8th Cir. 1992). “49 U.S.C. § 10744 (making only shippers (consignors) and, in some situations, consignees liable for freight charges).”
Ranger Transp., Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, 903 F.2d 1185 (8th Cir. 1990). “(Wal-Mart) under 49 U.S.C. § 10744 (1982) alleging unpaid freight charges of $110,562 arising from shipments made in June through November of 1987.”
CSX Transp. Co. v. Novolog Bucks Cnty., 502 F.3d 247 (3rd Cir. 2007). “See Historical and Revision Notes to 49 U.S.C. § 10744 (1982) ("[t]he word 'rates’ is substituted for 'charges’ for consistency in view of the definition of ‘rate’ in section 10102 of the revised title”).”
Fikse & Co. v. United States, 23 Cl. Ct. 200 (Ct. Cl. 1991). “49 U.S.C. § 10744 (a)(1) (1989). By its own terms this section does not apply to the present circumstances, since it imposes liability only “when the transportation is provided by a rail, motor, or water common carrier under this subtitle.”
Thunderbird Motor Freight Lines, Inc. v. Penn-Dixie Steel Corp. (In Re Penn-Dixie Steel Corp.), 6 B.R. 817 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1980). “See, Consolidated Freightways Corp. v. Admiral Corp., supra. In fact, the trend of the cases of the last decade, and especially the latest cases in both the federal and state courts, has been to hold that a carrier will be barred from recovering from a consignee when the ICA’s…”
E.W. Wylie Corp. v. Menard, Inc., 523 N.W.2d 395 (N.D. 1994). “§ 10744 (part): Liability for payment of rates (a)(1) Liability for payment of rates for transportation for a shipment of property by a shipper or consignor to a consignee other than the shipper or consignor, is determined under this subsection when the transportation is…”
Cent. Freight Lines, Inc. v. United States, 87 Fed. Cl. 104 (Fed. Cl. 2009). “At the time of the Fikse decision, Section 13706 was codified at 49 U.S.C. § 10744 (1989). . 49 U.S.C. § 13902 (f)(2) states: Pre-existing certificates and permits.”
Sea-Land Serv., Inc. v. Murrey & Son's Co. Inc., 824 F.2d 740 (9th Cir. 1987). “§§ 3 (2), 3(3), amended by 49 U.S.C. § 10744 (c) (Supp.1987). The court noted that the Supreme Court had found an implied private cause of action in carriers under the Interstate Commerce Act long before Congress enacted these explicit provisions.”
Bankr. Est. of United Shipping Co. v. Tucker Co., 474 N.W.2d 835 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991). “900 (1924); see 49 U.S.C. § 10744 (1990). Primary liability for freight charges may be shifted to a third party, but the transfer must arise pursuant to statute or clearly be established in the parties' contract or course of dealing.”
LTV Steel Co. v. David Graham Co. (In Re Chateaugay Corp.), 78 B.R. 713 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1987). “Admiral Corp., supra. In fact, the trend of the cases of the last decade, and especially the latest cases in both the federal and state courts, has been to hold that a carrier will be barred from recovering from a consignee when the ICA’s policy against discrimination is not…”
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.