49 U.S.C. § 4
DISSEMINATING INFORMATION ON BEST PRACTICES.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 60
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1927–2022 · leading case: United States v. Students Challenging Regulatory Agency Procedures (SCRAP), 412 U.S. 669 (1973).
United States v. Students Challenging Regulatory Agency Procedures (SCRAP), 412 U.S. 669 (1973). “Indeed, in another provision [namely, 49 U. S. C. § 4 (2)] of the very same statute [that established the suspension powers] Congress .”
A. L. Mechling Barge Lines, Inc. v. United States, 368 U.S. 324 (1961). “§ 4 (1): "It shall be unlawful for any common carrier subject to this chapter or chapter 12 of this title to charge or receive any greater compensation in the aggregate for the transportation of passengers, or of like kind of property, for a shorter than for a longer distance…”
Arrow Transp. Co. v. S. Ry. Co., 372 U.S. 658 (1963). “" 49 U. S. C. § 4 (2). In addition § 8 of the Act, 49 U.”
Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries, 49 F.4th 655 (2d Cir. 2022). “in section 1292(b) of title 28 [interlocutory decisions], an appeal may not be taken from an interlocutory order-- (1) granting a stay of any action under section 3 of this title; (2) directing arbitration to proceed under section 4 of this title; 4 (3) compelling arbitration…”
Interstate Com. Comm'n v. Mechling, 330 U.S. 567 (1947). “898 , 904, 49 U.S.C. § 4 . [13] The Commission stated that "on the average, as compared with the ex-barge grain, the movement under the ex-rail proportionals .”
Dixie Carriers, Inc. v. United States, 143 F. Supp. 844 (S.D. Tex. 1956). “The only substantial factual difference is that here the proposed rates required express Section Four approval by the Commission under the Long and Short Haul provision, 49 U.S.C.A. § 4 (1) of the National Transportation Act, 49 U.”
Algoma Coal & Coke Co. v. United States, 11 F. Supp. 487 (E.D. Va. 1935). “The prayer of the petition was that the Commission find the proposed rates to be just and reasonable and permit tariffs based thereon to become effective without suspension, together with other necessary relief of a technical nature under sections 4 and 6 of the Interstate…”
Nat'l Van Lines, Inc. v. United States of Am. & Interstate Com. Comm'n, 355 F.2d 326 (7th Cir. 1966). “Inadvertent mistake provides no excuse for a deviation. Armour & Co. v. Atchison, T. & S.”
Seaboard Allied Milling Corp. v. Interstate Com. Comm'n, Bd. of Trade of the City of Chicago v. Interstate Com. Comm'n, 570 F.2d 1349 (8th Cir. 1978). “Included were the contentions that the Commission should suspend the tariff and investigate the charges that the tariff violated the long- and-short haul provisions of 49 U.S.C. § 4 (1), that applying the increase only to railroad-owned cars was discriminatory, and that the…”
Schaffer Transp. Co. v. United States, 355 U.S. 83 (1957). “904 , 49 U. S. C. § 4 (1). In short, some rules dealing with the regulation of surface transportation are narrowly specific, leaving practically no scope for discretion in their application by the Interstate Commerce Commission.”
Overfield v. Pennroad Corp., 146 F.2d 889 (3rd Cir. 1944). “481 , 49 U.S.C.A. § 4 . A convenient index of railroad companies as allocated under the Interstate Commerce Commission's consolidation plan may be found in Moody's "Steam Railroads" for the years after 1921.”
Interstate Com. Comm'n v. Inland Waterways Corp., 319 U.S. 671 (1943). “904 , 49 U.S.C. § 4 (1). [3] 44 Stat. 1447 as amended by 54 Stat.”
— 49 U.S.C. § 4(1) — 1 case
Beaumont, Sour Lake & W. Ry. Co. v. Magnolia Provision Co., 26 F.2d 72 (5th Cir. 1928).
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.