U.S. Code » Title 49 » Subtitle SUBTITLE V— RAIL PROGRAMS › Part PART E— MISCELLANEOUS › Chapter CHAPTER 281— LAW ENFORCEMENT

49 U.S.C. § 302

FINDINGS.

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 49 CasesGoogle Scholar
“Congress finds that—“(1) rail transportation is an essential component of the North American intermodal transportation system;“(2) the development of economically strong and socially stable communities in the western United States and Canada was encouraged significantly by government policies promoting the development of integrated transcontinental, interstate and interprovincial rail systems in the States, territories and provinces of the two countries;“(3) United States and Canadian federal support for the completion of new elements of the transcontinental, interstate and interprovincial rail systems was halted before rail connections were established to the State of Alaska and the Yukon Territory;“(4) rail transportation in otherwise isolated areas facilitates controlled access and may reduce overall impact to environmentally sensitive areas;“(5) the extension of the continental rail system through northern British Columbia and the Yukon Territory to the current terminus of the Alaska Railroad would significantly benefit the United States and Canadian visitor industries by facilitating the comfortable movement of passengers over long distances while minimizing effects on the surrounding areas; and“(6) ongoing research and development efforts in the rail industry continue to increase the efficiency of rail transportation, ensure safety, and decrease the impact of rail service on the environment.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 99 cases, 1938–2018 · leading case: California v. Zook, 336 U.S. 725 (1949).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
California v. Zook, 336 U.S. 725 (1949). · cites it 9× “920 , 49 U.S.C. § 302 (b). For full text of original § 202 (b) and (c), later designated § 202 (a) and (b), see Appendix B (2), infra, p.”
Yellow Transp., Inc. v. Michigan, 537 U.S. 36 (2002). · cites it 2× “648, 49 U.S.C. § 302 (b)(2) (1970 ed.). Congress provided that state registration requirements would not constitute an undue burden on interstate commerce so long as they were consistent with regulations promulgated by the ICC.”
United States v. S. Motor Carriers Rate Conf., 439 F. Supp. 29 (N.D. Ga. 1977). · cites it 5× “Specifically, defendants rely upon 49 U.S.C. § 302 (b) of Part II of the Act, which, in defining the applicability of the Act, provides: Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to affect the powers of taxation of the several States or to authorize a motor carrier to do an…”
People v. W. Air Lines, Inc., 268 P.2d 723 (Cal. 1954). · cites it 2× “§ 1 ) (railroads); § 202(b) Part II, Interstate Commerce Act ( 49 U.S.C. § 302 ) (motor carriers); § 303 (j) Part III, Interstate Commerce Act, (49 U.”
Am. Trucking Associations, Inc. v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 387 U.S. 397 (1967). · cites it 2× “The Act expressly exempts from the freight-forwarder provisions any person who performs these services — which are similar to those of freight forwarders — as a carrier subject to another part of the Act.”
Cent. Greyhound Lines, Inc. v. Mealey, 334 U.S. 653 (1948). · cites it 2× “" But § 302 (b) of the same Act, 49 U.S.C. § 302 (b), states that nothing therein "shall be construed to affect the powers of taxation of the several States.”
Munoz-Gonzalez v. D.L.C. Limousine Serv., Inc., 904 F.3d 208 (2d Cir. 2018). “(1952) (giving the ICC jurisdiction over railroads, inland waterway transportation, motor carriers, air commerce, and water carriers). To take just one example, the Motor Carrier Act gave the ICC power to set maximum-hours requirements for bus and truck drivers, creating the…”
Cent. Freight Lines (Substituted in Place of Steere Tank Lines, Inc.) v. Interstate Com. Comm'n & United States of Am., 899 F.2d 413 (5th Cir. 1990). · cites it 2× “Congress defined “interstate *424 commerce” for the purposes of Part II of the Interstate Commerce Act pertaining to motor carriers as “commerce between any place in a State and any place in another State ..”
Mid-Con Freight Sys., Inc. v. Michigan Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 545 U.S. 440 (2005). · cites it 2× “49 U. S. C. § 302 (b)(2) (1976 ed.); *443 see generally Yellow Transp.”
Agric. Transp. Ass'n of Texas v. Wilbur C. King, 349 F.2d 873 (5th Cir. 1965). · cites it 2× “§ 202(c) (1) and (2), 49 U.S.C.A. § 302 (c) (1) and (2). See also § 202(a), 49 U.”
Westlake Transp., Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 662 N.W.2d 784 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003). “Pub L 89-170, 79 Stat 648, 49 USC § 302 (b)(2) (1970 ed). Congress provided that state registration requirements would not constitute an undue burden on interstate commerce so long as they were consistent with regulations promulgated by the icc.”
City of Chicago v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 357 U.S. 77 (1958). “…be regulated in the same manner as, the transportation by railroad . . . to which such services are incidental." 49 U. S. C. § 302 (c).”
Show all 99 citing cases →
— 49 U.S.C. § 302(a) — 4 cases
Albert Galbreath v. Gulf Oil Corp., 413 F.2d 941 (5th Cir. 1969).
Middle Atl. Conf. v. United States, 353 F. Supp. 1109 (D.D.C. 1972).
Twin City Freight, Inc. v. United States, 360 F. Supp. 709 (D. Minnesota 1972).
Visceglia v. United States, 24 F. Supp. 355 (S.D.N.Y. 1938).
— 49 U.S.C. § 302(c) — 2 cases
Cederblade v. Parmelee Transp. Co., 166 F.2d 554 (7th Cir. 1948).
Textron, Inc. v. Lowell Trucking Corp., 74 F. Supp. 322 (S.D.N.Y. 1947).
— 49 U.S.C. § 302(i)(1) — 1 case
McDade, David Kent (Tex. App. 2015).
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.