Notes of Decisions
Aux Sable Liquid Prods. v. Murphy, 526 F.3d 1028 (7th Cir. 2008).
· cites it 6× “Aux Sable then brought suit seeking injunctive relief under the STAA, as codified at 49 U.S.C. § 31114 , and under the Illinois Vehicle Code, 625 III.”
Town Of Delafield v. Cent. Transp. Kriewaldt, 2020 WI 61, 944 N.W.2d 819.
· cites it 10× “The STAA and Accompanying Federal Regulations ¶10 The portion of the STAA that requires states to provide reasonable access to commercial motor vehicles is found in 49 U.S.C. § 31114 . Subsection (a) provides that a state "may not enact or enforce a law denying to a commercial…”
Crest Hill Land Dev., LLC v. City of Joliet, 396 F.3d 801 (7th Cir. 2005).
“Crest filed its two-count complaint on May 20, 2003, alleging in Count I violations of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act, 49 U.S.C. § 31114 , and in Count, II violations of the ’Illinois Motor Vehicle Code, 625 Ill.”
Mason & Dixon Lines, Inc. v. STEUDLE, 761 F. Supp. 2d 611 (E.D. Mich. 2011).
· cites it 3× “Count V alleges a violation of 49 U.S.C. § 31114 (part of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act) and an implementing regulation, 23 C.”
Garza v. City of La Porte, 160 F. Supp. 3d 986 (S.D. Tex. 2016).
· cites it 2× “The district court held that the STAA did not preempt the town’s injunction, citing 49 U.S.C. § 31114 (the STAA’s reasonable access provision).”
Fed. Hous. Fin. Agency v. City of Chicago, 962 F. Supp. 2d 1044 (N.D. Ill. 2013).
“The City did not seek discovery concerning FHFA’s allegation that the ordinance imposes an impermissible tax on the federal government.”
Keck v. Commonwealth ex rel. Golden, 998 S.W.2d 13 (Ky. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 2× “49 U.S.C. § 31114 . The proper analysis, as we see it, is whether or not the noise control ordinance, which essentially prohibits heavy commercial vehicles from operating in an area zoned residential during hours of darkness, conflicts with or violates the “reasonable access”…”
Mason & Dixon Lines Inc. v. Kirk Steudle, 683 F.3d 289 (6th Cir. 2012).
· cites it 2× “§ 31114 (a)(2) The plaintiffs also argue that the State’s unwillingness to open the ramps is foreclosed by a provision of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act, 49 U.S.C. § 31114 (a)(2), which states that, absent safety considerations, “[a] State may not enact or enforce a…”
Town of Delafield v. Cent. Transp. Kriewaldt, 2019 WI App 35, 932 N.W.2d 423.
· cites it 6× “1 *182 ¶3 Following a court trial, the circuit court granted Central Transport's motion to dismiss the citation on the basis that the seasonal weight restriction did not allow Central Transport reasonable access to its Town customer and thus was preempted by federal law,…”
Hanscom’s Truck Stop v. Portsmouth, No. CV-98-488-B (D.N.H. Nov. 10, 1998).
· cites it 13× “Background Hanscom’s filed this action for declaratory and injunctive relief, based on an argument that the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 (“Act”), as amended, 49 U.S.C. § 31114 , pre-empts the Ordinance.”
City of La Vergne v. Brian Ristau, No. M2018-00542-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 2, 2018).
· cites it 4× “Ristau, the ordinance conflicts with 49 U.S.C. § 31114 , which provides that states “may not enact or enforce a law denying to a commercial motor vehicle .”
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.