U.S. Code » Title 49 » Subtitle SUBTITLE II— OTHER GOVERNMENT AGENCIES › Chapter CHAPTER 13— SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER I— ESTABLISHMENT

49 U.S.C. § 1302

Functions

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

Except as otherwise provided in the ICC Termination Act of 1995, or the amendments made thereby, the Board shall perform all functions that, immediately before January 1, 1996, were functions of the Interstate Commerce Commission or were performed by any officer or employee of the Interstate Commerce Commission in the capacity as such officer or employee.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 113 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1960–2023 · leading case: Verizon Commc'ns Inc. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 535 U.S. 467 (2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Verizon Commc'ns Inc. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 535 U.S. 467 (2002). · cites it 2× “V); Federal Aviation Act of 1958, 49 U. S. C. § 1302 (c) (1976 ed., Supp. II) (repealed 1980); see also ante, at 478 *543 (discussing traditional ratesetting); J.”
Int'l Travel Arrangers, Inc. v. W. Airlines, Inc., 623 F.2d 1255 (8th Cir. 1980). · cites it 4× “On appeal, Western argues that the CAB had primary jurisdiction over the case under (1) 49 U.S.C. §§ 1302 , 1381 (§ 1302 amended 1978) and 14 C.”
Hughes Tool Co. v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 409 U.S. 363 (1973). · cites it 4× “[4] Section 102, 49 U. S. C. § 1302 , reads: "In the exercise and performance of its powers and duties under this chapter, the Board shall consider the following, among other things, as being in the public interest, and in accordance with the public convenience and necessity:…”
Nader v. Allegheny Airlines, Inc., 426 U.S. 290 (1976). · cites it 2× “79, 84 (1956), and the Board's duty to promote "adequate, economical, and efficient service," § 102 (c) of the Act, 49 U. S. C. § 1302 (c), "at the lowest cost consistent with the furnishing of such service," § 1002 (e) (2) of the Act, 49 U.”
Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. Black, 116 S.W.3d 745 (Tex. 2003). · cites it 2× “§ 40101 (a)(6), (a)(12)(A) (formerly codified at 49 U.S.C. § 1302 (a)(4), (a)(9)). In enacting the ADA, Congress determined that “ ‘maximum reliance on competitive market forces’ would best further ‘efficiency, innovation, and low prices’ as well as “variety [and] quality .”
Kodish v. United Airlines, Inc., 463 F. Supp. 1245 (D. Colo. 1979). · cites it 5× “…The first claim for relief is brought under §§ 102(a)(3) and 404(b) of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, as amended, 49 U.S.C. §§ 1302 (a)(3) 1 and 1374(b). The second claim for relief is brought pursuant to § 1 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1981 .…”
Alejandro Lupian v. Joseph Cory Holdings LLC, 905 F.3d 127 (3d Cir. 2018). “3d at 190-91 (citing 49 U.S.C. § 1302 (recodified as amended 49 U.”
Mark KODISH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED AIR LINES, INC., Defendant-Appellee, 628 F.2d 1301 (10th Cir. 1980). · cites it 3× “The amended complaint set forth three claims for relief: (1) a claim based on the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, as amended, 49 U.S.C. §§ 1302 (a)(3) and 1374(b); (2) a second claim based on the Civil Rights Act of 1866, as amended, 42 U.”
Cont'l Air Lines, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Bd., 522 F.2d 107 (D.C. Cir. 1974). · cites it 4× “Section 102(c) charges the Board, while performing its statutory functions, to consider as being in the public interest The promotion of adequate, economical, and efficient service by air carriers at reasonable charges, without unjust discriminations, undue preferences or…”
Home Box Off., Inc. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n & United States of Am., Prof'l Baseball, Intervenors, 567 F.2d 9 (D.C. Cir. 1977). “In that case the Justice Department, advocating a least restrictive alternative approach, challenged CAB action under § 102 of the Federal Aviation Act, 49 U.S.C. § 1302 (1970), which expressly incorporates anticom-petitive effect as one of six factors to be considered in…”
Air Line Pilots Ass'n, Int'l v. Civil Aeronautics Bd., & New York Air Lines, Inc., Intervenors, 643 F.2d 935 (2d Cir. 1981). · cites it 6× “1705 , codified at 49 U.S.C. § 1302 , requires the CAB to “fully evaluate” the report of the Federal Aviation Administration on the safety implications of new air carriers, 49 U.”
John Rauch v. United Instruments, Inc. & Tokyo Aircraft Instrument Co., 548 F.2d 452 (3d Cir. 1976). · cites it 2× “See §§ 102(b) and (e), 103(a) and (c), 701(a)(5) and 803 of the Act, 49 U.S.C.A. §§ 1302 (b) and (e), 1303(a) and (c), 1441(a)(5) and 1463.”
Show all 113 citing cases →
49 U.S.C. § 1302(b): 1 case
World Airways, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Bd., Pan Am. World Airways, Inc., Intervenor, 447 F.2d 377 (D.C. Cir. 1971).
49 U.S.C. § 1302(e): 1 case
Robert L. McCord & Oswald Simon v. Dixie Aviation Corp., 450 F.2d 1129 (10th Cir. 1971).
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.