49 U.S.C. § 15103

Remedies as cumulative

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

Except as otherwise provided in this part, the remedies provided under this part are in addition to remedies existing under another law or common law.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 8 cases, 1997–2016 · leading case: Frank H. Smith v. United Parcel Serv., 296 F.3d 1244 (11th Cir. 2002).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Frank H. Smith v. United Parcel Serv., 296 F.3d 1244 (11th Cir. 2002). “" 49 U.S.C. § 15103 (1996). 3 . The Seventh Circuit decision in Gordon v.”

Drattel v. Toyota Motor Corp., 699 N.E.2d 376 (NY 1998). · cites it 2× “Thus, former section 22 of the Interstate Commerce Act (recodified in 49 USC § 15103 ) stipulated that "[n]othing in this act * * * shall in any way abridge or alter the remedies now existing at common law or by statute, but the provisions of this act are in addition to such…”

Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Brother's Trucking Enter., Inc., 373 F. Supp. 2d 1349 (S.D. Fla. 2005). “See 49 U.S.C. § 15103 . (“the remedies ... are in addition to remedies existing under another law, or common law”).”

Fed. Carr. Cas. P 84,057 Mark L. Gordon, as Adm'r of the Est. of Ruth Slavin, & Rachelle Gordon, & v. United Van Lines, Inc., &, 130 F.3d 282 (7th Cir. 1997). “§ 10103 (and now codified at 49 U.S.C. § 15103 ), which we discuss below.”

UPS Supply Chain Solutions, Inc. v. Megatrux Transp., Inc., 750 F.3d 1282 (11th Cir. 2014). “” 49 U.S.C. § 15103 . The savings clause, explained the Court: was evidently only intended to continue in existence such other rights or remedies for the redress of some specific wrong or injury, whether given by the interstate commerce act, or by state statute, or common law,…”

Ivana Vidovic Mlinar v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 186 So. 3d 997 (Fla. 2016). “” 49 U.S.C. § 15103 ; accord Multiflex Sys.”

Bear MGC Cutlery Co. v. Estes Express Lines, Inc., 132 F. Supp. 2d 937 (N.D. Ala. 2001). “” This section suggests a Congressional intent that state law, and not just state jurisdiction, operate beside the Carmack Amendment.”

Com. Union Ins. v. Forward Air, Inc., 50 F. Supp. 2d 255 (S.D.N.Y. 1999). “” 49 U.S.C. § 15103 (1996). However, this savings clause has been interpreted in a very limited fashion.”

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.