49 U.S.C. § 11321

Scope of authority

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

(a) The authority of the Board under this subchapter is exclusive. A rail carrier or corporation participating in or resulting from a transaction approved by or exempted by the Board under this subchapter may carry out the transaction, own and operate property, and exercise control or franchises acquired through the transaction without the approval of a State authority. A rail carrier, corporation, or person participating in that approved or exempted transaction is exempt from the antitrust laws and from all other law, including State and municipal law, as necessary to let that rail carrier, corporation, or person carry out the transaction, hold, maintain, and operate property, and exercise control or franchises acquired through the transaction. However, if a purchase and sale, a lease, or a corporate consolidation or merger is involved in the transaction, the carrier or corporation may carry out the transaction only with the assent of a majority, or the number required under applicable State law, of the votes of the holders of the capital stock of that corporation entitled to vote. The vote must occur at a regular meeting, or special meeting called for that purpose, of those stockholders and the notice of the meeting must indicate its purpose.(b) A power granted under this subchapter to a carrier or corporation is in addition to and changes its powers under its corporate charter and under State law. Action under this subchapter does not establish or provide for establishing a corporation under the laws of the United States.(Added Pub. L. 104–88, title I, § 102(a), Dec. 29, 1995, 109 Stat. 838.)Editorial NotesPrior Provisions

Provisions similar to those in this section were contained in section 11341 of this title prior to the general amendment of this subtitle by Pub. L. 104–88, § 102(a).

A prior section 11321, Pub. L. 95–473, Oct. 17, 1978, 92 Stat. 1432, related to limitations on ownership of certain water carriers, prior to the general amendment of this subtitle by Pub. L. 104–88, § 102(a).

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 42 cases (9 in the last 5 years), 1983–2024 · leading case: Crounse Corp. v. Interstate Com. Comm'n & United States of Am., 781 F.2d 1176 (6th Cir. 1986).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Crounse Corp. v. Interstate Com. Comm'n & United States of Am., 781 F.2d 1176 (6th Cir. 1986). · cites it 7× “Petitioners and intervenors *1181 claim that the ICC erred in holding that the transaction violates neither the Panama Canal Act, 49 U.S.C. § 11321 , nor section 11344 of the Interstate Commerce Act, 49 U.”

United Transp. Union v. Burlington N. Santa Fe R.R., 528 F.3d 674 (9th Cir. 2008). · cites it 9× “49 U.S.C. § 11321 (a). However, the STB must still “impose labor protective conditions on the transaction to safeguard the interests of adversely affected railroad employees.”

Soo Line R.R. Co. v. Consol. Rail Corp., 965 F.3d 596 (7th Cir. 2020). · cites it 2× “§ 10501 (b) and 49 U.S.C. § 11321 (a) independently preempted Canadian Pa- cific’s claims.”

Vill. of Barrington v. Surface Transp. Bd., 636 F.3d 650 (D.C. Cir. 2011). “49 U.S.C. § 11321 (a). Interpreting that provision as exempting merged railroads from state and local environmental laws, the Board worried that if it lacked environmental conditioning authority, then affected communities would be powerless to address substantial environmental…”

Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd. v. Regal-Beloit Corp., 561 U.S. 89 (2010). “Under 49 U. S. C. §11321 , 3 I. C. C. 2d 512, 519 (1987).”

Springfield Terminal Ry. Co. v. Canadian Pac. Ltd., 133 F.3d 103 (1st Cir. 1997). · cites it 2× “First, accepting the truth of all allegations, CP claimed exemption from antitrust liability under 49 U.S.C. § 11321 (a), which provides that ICC approval of a purchase of one carrier by another creates an exemption “from the antitrust laws and from all other law .”

PCS Phosphate Co., Inc. v. Norfolk S. Corp., 559 F.3d 212 (4th Cir. 2009). “That section is now codified at 49 U.S.C. § 11321 (a) and it is not at issue in this case.”

Norfolk S. Ry. Co. v. STB, 72 F.4th 297 (D.C. Cir. 2023). · cites it 3× “Norfolk Southern asserted immunity under 49 U.S.C. § 11321 (a), which provides that a “rail carrier .”

Swonger v. Surface Transp. Bd., 265 F.3d 1135 (10th Cir. 2001). · cites it 2× “Congress has enacted laws to encourage the consolidation of railroad operations, including 49 U.S.C. § 11321 . Part (a) of that section exempts those participating in a transaction consolidating railroad operations from “antitrust laws and from all other law .”

Hagerman v. United Transp. Union, 281 F.3d 1189 (10th Cir. 2002). · cites it 2× “To that end, the Board may specify which collective bargaining agreements or provisions of such agreements will govern during and after implementation of a merger.”

Holland v. Delray Connecting R.R., 311 F. Supp. 2d 744 (N.D. Ind. 2004). · cites it 2× “A rail carrier, corporation, or person participating in that approved or exempted transaction is exempt from the antitrust laws and from all other law, including State and municipal law, as necessary to let that rail carrier, corporation, or person carry out the transaction,…”

Norfolk & W. Ry. Co. v. Bhd. of R.R. Signalmen, 11 F. Supp. 2d 833 (W.D. Va. 1998). · cites it 5× “They claim they may propose those changes because, as shown by Count III of their complaint, they assert that the Interstate Commerce Act’s consolidation provisions, in particular 49 U.S.C. §§ 11321 (a) and 11326(a), supersede the Railway Labor Act’s prohibition against…”

Show all 42 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.