49 U.S.C. § 308

FUNDING.

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 49 CasesGoogle Scholar
“(a)Rails to Resources Fund.—The Agreement should provide for the following:“(1)Establishment.—The establishment of an interest-bearing account to be known as the ‘Rails to Resources Fund’.“(2)Contributions.—The contribution by the United States and the Government of Canada to the Fund of amounts that are sufficient for the Commission to carry out its duties.“(3)Availability.—The availability of amounts in the Fund to pay the costs of Commission activities.“(4)Dissolution.—Dissolution of the Fund upon the termination of the Commission and distribution of the amounts remaining in the Fund between the United States and the Government of Canada.“(b)Authorization of Appropriations.—There is authorized to be appropriated to any fund established for use by the Commission as described in subsection (a)(1) $6,000,000, to remain available until expended.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 64 cases, 1939–2002 · leading case: Thompson Van Lines, Inc. v. United States, 399 F. Supp. 1131 (D.D.C. 1975).
Thompson Van Lines, Inc. v. United States, 399 F. Supp. 1131 (D.D.C. 1975). · cites it 11× “The Commission, while permitting tacking of certificates has held to the belief that in appropriate circumstances, it may, pursuant to 49 U.S. C. § 308, impose restrictions against tacking.”
Atwood's Transp. Lines, Inc. v. United States, 211 F. Supp. 168 (D.D.C. 1962). · cites it 13× “The pertinent statutory provision is found in the Interstate Commerce Act, 49 U.S.C. § 308 (c), and reads as follows: "(c) Any common carrier by motor vehicle transporting passengers under a certificate issued under this chapter may transport in interstate or foreign commerce to…”
City of Olmsted Falls, Ohio v. Fed. Aviation Admin. & Dep't of Transp., City of Cleveland, Ohio, Intervenor, 292 F.3d 261 (D.C. Cir. 2002). “tion of Abram Creek, caused by a adverting of a portion of the creek to build the relocated runway, constitutes a “use” of parkland requiring “full analysis” under Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act, 49 U.”
Am. Trucking Assns., Inc. v. United States, 344 U.S. 298 (1953). · cites it 2× “49 U. S. C. §§ 308 (a) and 309 (b). [3] Crescent Express Lines v.”
The Baltimore & Annapolis R.R. Co., a Maryland Corp. v. Washington Metro. Area Transit Comm'n (Wmatc), 642 F.2d 1365 (D.C. Cir. 1980). · cites it 3× “B & A also offered service to special and charter parties-both wholly within the Metropolitan District and between points within and outside the District-as an incident to the ICC certificate, under the authority of the Motor Carrier Act of 1935, § 208(c), 49 U.S.C. § 308 (c)…”
Civil Aeronautics Bd. v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 367 U.S. 316 (1961). · cites it 2× “However, two important distinctions between that case and this are apparent: (1) the Motor Carrier Act makes express provision for summary modifications after certification, 49 U. S. C. § 308 , and (2) the Court in Rock Island was very careful to limit its holding to the…”
J. B. Montgomery, Inc. v. United States, 206 F. Supp. 455 (D. Colo. 1962). · cites it 4× “The Commission asserts the following statutory authority: (1) Section 208(a) of the Motor Carriers Act [ 49 U.S.C.A. § 308 (a)] relating to issuance of both “grandfather” and new certificates provides that the Commission may specify “the service to be rendered and the routes…”
Transamerican Freight Lines, Inc. v. Brada Miller Freight Sys., Inc., 423 U.S. 28 (1975). “49 U. S. C. § 308 (a). See Nelson, Inc. v.”
Marnell v. United Parcel Serv. of Am., Inc., 260 F. Supp. 391 (N.D. Cal. 1966). · cites it 2× “49 U.S.C. § 308 (1964). Common carriers are also required to file with the Commission all its rates, fares and charges for its common carrier service and are prohibited from deviating therefrom.”
Baggett Transp. Co. v. United States, 206 F. Supp. 835 (N.D. Ala. 1962). · cites it 4× “391 , where it was held that the Commission could modify a motor carrier’s certificate pursuant to a reservation in the initial order, the Court stated: “However, two important distinctions between that case and this are apparent: (1) The Motor Carrier Act makes express…”
Gateway Transp. Co. v. United States, 173 F. Supp. 822 (W.D. Wis. 1959). · cites it 3× “” Section 208(a) ( 49 U.S.C.A. § 308 (a)) provides: “Any certificate issued under section 206 or 207 shall specify the service to be rendered and the routes over which, the fixed termini, if any, between which, and the intermediate and off-route points, if any, at which, and in…”
Regular Common Carrier Conf. v. United States, 307 F. Supp. 941 (D.D.C. 1969). · cites it 3× “For the reasons stated below, we hold that the Commission properly employed a rule making proceeding to remove these re *943 strietions under the authority of section 208(a) of the Interstate Commerce Act, 49 U.S.C. § 308 (a) (1964). I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND.”
— 49 U.S.C. § 308(a) — 3 cases
Thompson Van Lines, Inc. v. United States, 399 F. Supp. 1131 (D.D.C. 1975). “The Commission, while permitting tacking of certificates has held to the belief that in appropriate circumstances, it may, pursuant to 49 U.S. C. § 308, impose restrictions against tacking.”
E. Carrier Corp. v. United States, 31 F. Supp. 232 (M.D. Penn. 1939).
Safeway Trails, Inc. v. Interstate Com. Comm'n, 176 F. Supp. 201 (D.D.C. 1959).
— 49 U.S.C. § 308(c) — 2 cases
Atwood's Transp. Lines, Inc. v. United States, 211 F. Supp. 168 (D.D.C. 1962). “The pertinent statutory provision is found in the Interstate Commerce Act, 49 U.S.C. § 308 (c), and reads as follows: "(c) Any common carrier by motor vehicle transporting passengers under a certificate issued under this chapter may transport in interstate or foreign commerce to…”
Nat'l Bus Traffic Ass'n v. United States, 143 F. Supp. 689 (D.N.J. 1956).
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.