49 U.S.C. § 309
DEFINITIONS.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 94
cases, 1937–2012 · leading case: Interstate Com. Comm'n v. J-T Transp. Co., 368 U.S. 81 (1961).
Interstate Com. Comm'n v. J-T Transp. Co., 368 U.S. 81 (1961). “411 , 49 U. S. C. § 309 (b). It said that the shippers did not require a distinct type of service that could not be provided by the protesting carrier, which was indeed in a position to provide any service needed and which would be adversely affected by a grant of this…”
United States v. Drum, 368 U.S. 370 (1962). “§ 303 (a) (15) [2] and subject to the permit requirements of 49 U. S. C. § 309 (a) (1). [3] 79 M. C. C.”
Churchill Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States of Am. & Interstate Com. Comm'n, Rpd, Inc. & Gen. Motors Corp., Intervenors, 533 F.2d 411 (8th Cir. 1976). “2d 147, 153 (1961), the leading Supreme Court case in this area, the Court held that section 209(b) of the Interstate Commerce Act, 49 U.S.C. § 309 (b) (1970), requires the Commission to weigh the distinct need of a shipper for new contract carrier service against the adequacy…”
Trans-Am. Van Serv., Inc. v. United States, 421 F. Supp. 308 (N.D. Tex. 1976). “Such a burden is improperly placed on the applicant, as the rejection of the proposed amendment to § 209(b) [ 49 U.S.C. § 309 (b)] suggests. The capabilities of protesting carriers are matters peculiarly within their knowledge.”
United States v. N. E. Rosenblum Truck Lines, Inc., 315 U.S. 50 (1942). “543 , 552, 49 U. S. C. § 309 (a)), for a permit authorizing operations as a contract carrier by motor vehicle.”
CTS Enter., Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Com'n, 540 So. 2d 275 (La. 1989). “49 U.S.C. § 309 (b). Thus, both the federal and Louisiana statutes require a showing of public convenience and necessity by the common carrier applicant and the counterpart showing, "in the public interest," for a contract carrier applicant.”
Bankers & Shippers Ins. Co. of NY v. Blackwell, 51 So. 2d 498 (Ala. 1951). “This is for the following reason: his only insurable interest is dependent upon an illegal transaction made so by an act, which was enacted for regulation and protection and not for revenue.”
Zuzich Truck Line, Inc. v. United States, 224 F. Supp. 457 (D. Kan. 1963). “at pages 639-641, and was originally issued to George Zuzich, an individual, under the so-called “grandfather” provisions of Section 209(a) of the Interstate Commerce Act, 49 U.S.C. § 309 (a). The four proceedings were referred to a Commission Examiner.”
Local 24, Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters v. Oliver, 358 U.S. 283 (1959). “552 , as amended, 49 U. S. C. § 309 . 2 The agreement covers between 3,000 and 3,500 employers and between 45,000 and 50,000 truck drivers.”
United States v. Contract Steel Carriers, Inc., 350 U.S. 409 (1956). “…within the scope of the permit, as the development of the business and the demands of the public may require." 49 U. S. C. § 309 (b).”
C-Line, Inc. v. United States, 376 F. Supp. 1043 (D.R.I. 1974). “By its application, filed with said Commission on January 26, 1970, under the provisions of 49 U.S.C. § 309 (a) and (b) and the Commission Rules thereunder, C-Line, Inc.”
Schenley Distillers Corp. v. United States, 326 U.S. 432 (1946). “, applied to the commission for a permit, under § 209 (b) of Part II of the Interstate Commerce Act, 49 U. S. C. §309 (b), authorizing operation as a “contract carrier by motor vehicle” of specified commodities in interstate commerce between specified points.”
— 49 U.S.C. § 309(a) — 2 cases
Agric. Transp. Ass'n of Texas v. Wilbur C. King, 349 F.2d 873 (5th Cir. 1965).
United States v. Conquest, 148 F. Supp. 62 (E.D. Pa. 1957).
— 49 U.S.C. § 309(b) — 3 cases
Forde L. Johnson Oil Co. v. H. F. Johnson Oil Co., 372 P.2d 135 (Idaho 1962).
J-T Transp. Co. v. United States, 191 F. Supp. 593 (W.D. Mo. 1961).
Midwest Truck Lines, Ltd. v. Interstate Com. Comm'n, 269 F. Supp. 554 (D.D.C. 1967).
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.