U.S. Code
»
Title 49
» Subtitle SUBTITLE IV— INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION › Part PART B— MOTOR CARRIERS, WATER CARRIERS, BROKERS, AND FREIGHT FORWARDERS › Chapter CHAPTER 147— ENFORCEMENT; INVESTIGATIONS; RIGHTS; REMEDIES
Notes of Decisions
Phoenix Assurance Co. v. K-Mart Corp., 977 F. Supp. 319 (D.N.J. 1997).
· cites it 4× “Certain procedural prerequisites must precede a civil action by a person injured by “transportation by motor vehicle or service” where the motor vehicle or service has failed to comply with statutory registration requirements.”
Overton v. Uber Techs., Inc., 333 F. Supp. 3d 927 (N.D. Cal. 2018).
· cites it 3× “" 49 U.S.C. § 14707 (a). Under Section 14707, the requirement for a "clear violation" is jurisdictional rather than a standard of proof.”
Tierney v. Arrowhead Concrete Works, Inc., 791 N.W.2d 540 (Minn. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 6× “§ 14704 (a)(2) is limited to claims for commercial damages; (2) the trustee failed to state a claim under 49 U.S.C. § 14707 (a), which provides for private actions to enforce federal registration requirements, because the trustee failed to plead a registration violation causally…”
Fulfillment Servs. Inc. v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 528 F.3d 614 (9th Cir. 2008).
“” The district court denied UPS’s motion for attorney’s fees under 49 U.S.C. § 14707 (e), holding both that it lacked jurisdiction to award fees, because it had dismissed the underlying suit for lack of standing, and that § 14707(e) requires only that attorney’s fees be awarded…”
Donaldson Tech. Grp. LLC v. Landstar Ranger, Inc., 347 F. Supp. 2d 525 (S.D. Ohio 2004).
“One June 4, 2003, De *527 fendants removed the action to this Court based upon federal question jurisdiction over the Carmack Amendment, 49 U.S.C. § 14707 , et seq. On May 26, 2004, Donaldson and Multicam amended their complaint to include a claim under the Carmack Amendment.”
Land Ocean Logistics, Inc. v. Aqua Gulf Corp., 68 F. Supp. 2d 263 (W.D.N.Y. 1999).
“49 U.S.C. § 14707 (a) (1998). Given the remedies available to Defendants pursuant to the express language of the ICC Termination Act, the court is unwilling to declare the Agreement between Land Ocean and Defendants void based solely on Land *271 Ocean’s failure to obtain an ICC…”
White v. Scotty's Contracting & Stone, LLC, No. 1:21-cv-00161, 2022 WL 4588417 (W.D. Ky. Sept. 29, 2022).
· cites it 3× “ACF Global argues that this Court should exercise jurisdiction over the negligent brokering claim because Congress created a private right of action under 49 U.S.C. § 14707 for injured parties to sue unregistered carriers who caused accidents transporting property in interstate…”
Archie Overton v. Uber Tech., Inc., No. 18-16610 (9th Cir. Mar. 10, 2020).
“As to appellants’ claims against the Uber defendants, the district court properly held that appellants lacked standing, based on fear of federal prosecution or other theories, to allege that Uber was operating as a motor carrier under the Federal Motor Carrier Act without…”
Reynolds v. Singh, No. 2:22-cv-00601 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 2022).
“Defendant points to 49 U.S.C. § 14707 . 23 However, that provision provides a cause of action if a person 24 violates the registration requirements of the act, not at issue 25 here.”
Starr Indem. & Liab. Co., Inc. v. JPF Inc, No. 0:22-cv-03007 (D. Minn. Oct. 7, 2025).
“C. § 13102 (14). A “broker,” on the other hand, is defined as “a person, other than a motor carrier or an employee or agent of a motor carrier, that as a principal or agent sells, offers for sale, negotiates for, or holds itself out by solicitation, advertisement, or otherwise…”
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.