49 U.S.C. § 2
DEFINITIONS.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 88
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1927–2026 · leading case: N. Pac. Ry. Co. v. United States, 356 U.S. 1 (1958).
N. Pac. Ry. Co. v. United States, 356 U.S. 1 (1958). “[7] 49 U. S. C. §§ 2 , 6 (7), 41 (3) [8] Of course it is common knowledge that a patent does not always confer a monopoly over a particular commodity.”
United States v. United States Steel Corp., 645 F.2d 1285 (8th Cir. 1981). “The Government further urges that a contrary interpretation cannot be given because the tariff would then be discriminatory in violation of section 2 of the Interstate Commerce Act, 49 U.S.C. § 2 . The district court noted the differing interpretations of the term “interior…”
Interstate Com. Comm'n v. Inland Waterways Corp., 319 U.S. 671 (1943). “This tariff is an unjust discrimination within the meaning of § 2 of the Interstate Commerce Act, 49 U.S.C. § 2 , which prohibits a carrier from demanding a charge either higher or lower than is charged by any other person for doing for him "a like and contemporaneous service in…”
Cook Inlet Pipe Line Co. v. Alaska Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 836 P.2d 343 (Alaska 1992). “49 U.S.C.A. § 2 (West 1959). Therefore, we conclude that when it interpreted Congress’ intent regarding the regulation of intrastate rates in Simpson, the Court rejected the notion that section 2 applied to intrastate rates.”
Am. Trucking Associations, Inc. v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 387 U.S. 397 (1967). “379 , as amended, 49 U. S. C. § 2 (hereinafter cited only to U.”
North Am. Phillips Corp. v. Emery Air Freight Corp., 579 F.2d 229 (2d Cir. 1978). “§ 1373 (b)(1), contains language which is similar to that of the Interstate Commerce Act, 49 U.S.C. §§ 2 , 3, 6(7), 906(c), the Federal Communications Act, 47 U.”
L. T. Barringer & Co. v. United States, 319 U.S. 1 (1943). “379 , 380; 49 U.S.C. §§ 2 , 3 (1). From the report of the Commission, on which its order was based, 248 I.”
Cent. & S. Motor Freight Tariff Ass'n v. United States, 273 F. Supp. 823 (D. Del. 1967). “the aggregate tariff is discriminatory in violation of 49 U.S.C.A. § 2 (1959); 2. REA’s use of a wholly-owned consolidator violates 49 U.”
United States v. Interstate Com. Comm'n, 198 F.2d 958 (D.C. Cir. 1952). “1 and 2 ceased to be “public” facilities when the Army took over their operation, and claims that the railroads subjected the traffic at these piers to undue prejudice, in violation of Section 2 of the Interstate Commerce Act, as amended, 49 U.S.C.A. § 2 . The Commission…”
Sec'y of Agric. v. United States, 347 U.S. 645 (1954). “[for] a like and contemporaneous service in the transportation of a like kind of traffic under substantially similar circumstances .”
USX Corp. v. Adriatic Ins. Co., 99 F. Supp. 2d 593 (W.D. Pa. 2000). “This definition parallels the treatment of “discrimination” as used in the ICA, see 49 U.S.C. §§ 2 , 3, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Seven Circuit has held that the term “discrimination” as used in the definition of “personal injury” can encompass a claim for…”
Albion Elevator Co. v. Chicago & North W. Transp. Co., 254 N.W.2d 6 (Iowa 1977). “§ 20 (1) and the provisions of 49 U.S.C.A. §§ 2 , 3(1) and 41. “10. For the purpose of resolution of the issues to be decided in the pending action at the present time, plaintiffs and defendant stipulate and agree as follows with respect to each shipment at issue herein: “b.”
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.