49 U.S.C. § 14504
Repealed. Pub. L. 109–59, title IV, § 4305(a), Aug. 10, 2005, 119 Stat. 1764; Pub. L. 110–53, title XV, § 1537(a), Aug. 3, 2007, 121 Stat. 467]
[repealed]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13
cases, 1997–2017 · leading case: Yellow Transp., Inc. v. Michigan, 537 U.S. 36 (2002).
Yellow Transp., Inc. v. Michigan, 537 U.S. 36 (2002). “1112 (2002), to determine whether the Michigan Supreme Court erred in *39 holding that, under 49 U.S.C. § 14504 (c)(2)(B)(iv)(III), only a State's "generic" fee is relevant to determining the fee that was "collected or charged as of November 15, 1991.”
Mid-Con Freight Sys., Inc. v. Michigan Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 545 U.S. 440 (2005). “49 U. S. C. § 14504 (b) (emphasis added); see also § 14504(e)(2)(B)(iv)(III).”
Sisson v. Hansen Storage Co., 2008 WI App 111 (Wis. Ct. App. 2008). “" As of the date of Maske's accident with Sisson in 2003, 49 U.S.C. § 14504 authorized the establishment of a single-state motor-carrier registration system: (c) Single State registration system.”
Yellow Transp., Inc v. State of Michigan (On Remand), 669 N.W.2d 553 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003). “" 49 USC § 14504 (c)(2)(B)(iv)(III). Nor did that court reach the question whether Michigan had "canceled its reciprocity agreements with other States in 1989.”
Caudill v. Strickland, 498 S.E.2d 81 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998). “” 49 USC § 14504 (c) (1) (C). The Act further provides that “only a State acting in its capacity as registration State under such single State system may require a motor carrier registered by the Secretary under this part .”
Westlake Transp., Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 662 N.W.2d 784 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003). “See 49 USC § 14504 (c). The Federal Highway Administration, under the Secretary of Transportation, adopted the icc regulations that implemented the Single State Registration System, 61 Fed Reg 54706, 54707 (1996), and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration now has…”
Yellow Freight Sys., Inc. v. Michigan, 585 N.W.2d 762 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998). “Although I express no disagreement with the reasoning of part V of the majority opinion, I do not join in that part because it concerns the relief to which plaintiff is entitled, where under my reading of the statute in question plaintiff is not entitled to any relief.”
First Am. Ins. Co. v. Commonwealth Gen. Ins., 954 S.W.2d 460 (Mo. Ct. App. 1997). “(Now, 49 U.S.C.A. § 14504 (West 1996)). . Under the terms of the two reinsurance treaties, the recipient of the proceeds would be entitled to $876,250 of the $1 million payment made by First American.”
Canal Ins. Co. v. Barker, 358 F. App'x 470 (4th Cir. 2009). “In addition, subsection (A) provides that motor carriers who have filed proof of financial responsibility “in accordance with the single state registration system authorized by 49 U.S.C. § 14504 or the unified carrier registration system authorized by 49 U.”
Midwest Crane & Rigging, LLC v. Kansas Corp. Com'n (Kan. 2017). “See 49 U.S.C. § 14504 (c) (2006) (defining single state registration system).”
Mid-Con Freight Sys., Inc. v. Michigan Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 543 U.S. 1086 (2005). “Certiorari granted limited to the following question: “Whether the $100 fee upon vehicles operating solely in interstate commerce is preempted by 49 U. S. C. § 14504 .””
Am. Trucking Assns. v. Michigan Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 543 U.S. 1096 (2005). “‘Whether the $100 fee upon vehicles operating solely in interstate commerce is preempted by 49 U. S. C. § 14504 .’ Cases consolidated, and a total of one hour allotted for oral argument.”
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.