49 U.S.C. § 20101
Purpose
The purpose of this chapter is to promote safety in every area of railroad operations and reduce railroad-related accidents and incidents.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 337
cases (47 in the last 5 years), 1995–2026 · leading case: Nickels v. Grand Trunk Western RR, Inc.
Nickels v. Grand Trunk Western RR, Inc. (2009)
“The railroads moved for summary judgment, arguing that the FRSA, 49 U.S.C. § 20101 , et seq., precluded the plaintiffs' FELA claims.”
Norfolk Southern Railway Co. v. Shanklin (2000)
“971 , as amended, 49 U. S. C. § 20101 et seq., in conjunction with the Federal Highway Administration's regulation addressing the adequacy of warning devices installed with federal funds, pre-empts state tort actions such as respondent's.”
Krentz v. Consolidated Rail Corp. (2006)
“National uniformity of regulation Laws, regulations, and orders related to railroad safety and laws, regulations, and orders related to railroad security shall be nationally uniform to the extent practicable.”
In Re Asbestos Products Liability Litigation (No. VI) (2016)
“As a consequence of this exposure, Billie contracted asbestosis and mesothelioma. He died on May 30, 2009, during the pendency of this lawsuit.”
Wisconsin Central, Ltd. v. Shannon (2008)
“While WCL counters that this “broad panoply” of federal legislation evinces a similar intent on Congress’s part to preempt state regulation of overtime wages, the IDOL is correct that Congress’s preemptive intent is more readily apparent with respect to these other subject…”
Fair v. BNSF Railway Co. (2015)
“BNSF’s primary argument on appeal is that the Federal Railroad Safety Act of 1970 (FRSA) ( 49 U.S.C. § 20101 et seq.), and the regulations promulgated thereunder, preclude Fair’s FELA claim in its entirety.”
Myers v. Missouri Pacific Railroad (2002)
“Those sections were repealed in 1994 and the FRSA is now recodified at 49 U.S.C. § 20101 et seq. 9 . See the terms of 49 U.”
Eagle Marine Industries, Inc. v. Union Pacific Railroad (2006)
“On appeal, Union Pacific contends that the circuit court erred in entering the injunction because (1) plaintiffs do not have a private right of action under section 18c— 7402(1)(b) of the Vehicle Code, (2) the action is preempted by the Federal Railroad Safety Authorization Act…”
People v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad (2012)
“) or the *1517 Federal Railroad Safety Act of 1970 (FRSA; 49 U.S.C. § 20101 et seq.). The trial court found the order not to be preempted by either the ICCTA or the FRSA.”
Henning v. Union Pacific Railroad (2008)
“Under this grant of authority, the Secretary is instructed to "maintain a coordinated effort to develop and carry out solutions to the railroad grade crossing problem.”
Kelli Smallwood v. Illinois Central Railroad Company Mississippi Department of Transportation (2004)
“at 1305-06 (quoting 49 U.S.C. § 20101 ). According to Powers , FRSA does not substantially subsume the subject matter of timely installation.”
Magna Trust Co. v. Illinois Central Railroad (2000)
“(1988)) into Title 49, Transportation ( 49 U.S.C. § 20101 et seq. (1994)). The legislative history states that this was a codification bill, enacting revisions without making changes in substance or impairing the precedent of earlier judicial decisions.”
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.