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. § 1305

Authorization of appropriations

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 49 CasesGoogle Scholar
There are authorized to be appropriated for the activities of the Board—(1) $33,000,000 for fiscal year 2016;(2) $35,000,000 for fiscal year 2017;(3) $35,500,000 for fiscal year 2018;(4) $35,500,000 for fiscal year 2019; and(5) $36,000,000 for fiscal year 2020.(Added Pub. L. 104–88, title II, § 201(a), Dec. 29, 1995, 109 Stat. 934, § 705; renumbered § 1305 and amended Pub. L. 114–110, §§ 3(a)(3), 7, Dec. 18, 2015, 129 Stat. 2228, 2232.)Editorial NotesAmendments

2015—Pub. L. 114–110, § 3(a)(3), renumbered section 705 of this title as this section.

Pars. (1) to (5). Pub. L. 114–110, § 7, added pars. (1) to (5) and struck out former pars. (1) to (3) which related to appropriations for fiscal years 1996, 1997, and 1998, respectively.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 136 cases (10 in the last 5 years), 1980–2025 · leading case: New York Airlines, Inc. v. Dukes Cnty., 623 F. Supp. 1435 (D. Mass. 1985).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
New York Airlines, Inc. v. Dukes Cnty., 623 F. Supp. 1435 (D. Mass. 1985). · cites it 15× “More specifically, defendants’ motion is granted as to New York Air’s claims under 49 U.S.C. §§ 1305 (a) and 1349(a) and under 42 U.”
Musson Theatrical, Inc., & Modernage Photo Serv., Inc., for Themselves & All Others Similarly Situated v. Fed. Express Corp., 89 F.3d 1244 (6th Cir. 1998). · cites it 2× “Although none of these claims had been pled in federal court, the district court exercised jurisdiction over them “[i]n order to conserve judicial resources.” Order, November 17, 1994, at 8.”
Arapahoe Cnty. Pub. Airport Auth. v. Centennial Express Airlines, Inc., 956 P.2d 587 (Colo. 1998). · cites it 6× “See 49 U.S.C. § 1305 (a)(1) (Supp. III 1979).”
In Re Air Cargo Shipping Servs. Antitrust Litig., 697 F.3d 154 (2d Cir. 2012). · cites it 4× “” 49 U.S.C. § 1305 (a)(1) (1978) (emphasis added).”
Air Transp. Ass'n of Am. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n of the State of California, Defendants, 833 F.2d 200 (9th Cir. 1987). · cites it 4× “, and the Federal Aviation Act, as amended by the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978, 49 U.S.C. § 1305 . 1 Named as defendants were the CPUC and its Commissioners, Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Company, and General Telephone Company of California.”
W. Air Lines, Inc. v. Port Auth. of New York & New Jersey, 817 F.2d 222 (2d Cir. 1987). · cites it 3× “Western argues that a “perimeter rule,” promulgated by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (the Authority), is preempted by a provision of the Airline Deregulation Act, 49 U.S.C. § 1305 (a)(1) and violates the substantive provisions of two other aviation statutes, 49 U.”
Michael Hingson v. Pac. Sw. Airlines, a California Corp., 743 F.2d 1408 (9th Cir. 1984). · cites it 3× “1, the district court held that 49 U.S.C. § 1305 (a) preempts the state law claims.”
Taj Mahal Travel, Inc. v. Delta Airlines Inc. Air Canada Airlines Reporting Corp., 164 F.3d 186 (3rd Cir. 1998). · cites it 2× “§ 41713 (b)(1) (formerly at 49 U.S.C. § 1305 (a)(1)), the District Court entered judgment against the plaintiff on a state RICO count.”
W. Air Lines v. Port Auth. of NY & NJ, 658 F. Supp. 952 (S.D.N.Y. 1986). · cites it 4× “DISCUSSION Western’s principle contentions center on three federal aviation statutes: Section 105(a)(1) of the Deregulation Act, 49 U.S.C. § 1305 (a)(1) [“Section 1305(a)(1)”]; the Airport & Airway Improvement Act, 49 U.”
Nina Michael v. Shiley, Inc. Hosp. Prods. Grp., Inc., (Formerly Howmedica, Inc.) Pfizer, Inc, 46 F.3d 1316 (3rd Cir. 1995). · cites it 2× “§ 1305 (a)(1), did not preempt Wolen’s common law contract claims, writing: We do not read the ADA’s preemption clause, however, to shelter airlines from suits alleging no violation of state-imposed obligations, but seeking recovery solely for the airline’s alleged breach of its…”
San Diego Unified Port Dist., & Air Transp. Ass'n of Am., Intervening v. Adriana Gianturco, 651 F.2d 1306 (9th Cir. 1981). · cites it 2× “For example, states may not regulate the “rates, routes or services of any air carrier” registered under federal law, 49 U.S.C. § 1305 (Supp. Ill 1979), and the federal government has declared it is “to possess and exercise complete and exclusively national sovereignty in the…”
Brackeen v. Haaland, 994 F.3d 249 (5th Cir. 2021). “at 1480 (alteration in original) (quoting 49 U.S.C. § 1305 ; Morales, 504 U.S. at 378 ).”
Show all 136 citing cases →
— 49 U.S.C. § 1305(a)(1) — 2 cases
Arapahoe Cnty. Pub. Airport Auth. v. Centennial Express Airlines, Inc., 956 P.2d 587 (Colo. 1998). “See 49 U.S.C. § 1305 (a)(1) (Supp. III 1979).”
Sikkelee v. Precision Airmotive Corp., 731 F. Supp. 2d 429 (M.D. Penn. 2010).
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.