49 U.S.C. § 5
CERTIFICATION.
“Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act [
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 480
cases, 1927–2012 · leading case: Penn-Cent. Merger & N & W Inclusion Cases, 389 U.S. 486 (1967).
Penn-Cent. Merger & N & W Inclusion Cases, 389 U.S. 486 (1967). “906 , 49 U. S. C. § 5 (2) (b), governed the Commission's examination of the present transactions.”
Alleghany Corp. v. Breswick & Co., 353 U.S. 151 (1957). “899 , 905, 49 U. S. C. § 5 (2) (a). [1] Appellant Alleghany Corporation is a Maryland corporation whose charter provides for extensive powers of investment under no express limitation.”
New York Dock Ry. & Brooklyn E. Dist. Terminal v. United States of Am. & Interstate Com. Comm'n, 609 F.2d 83 (2d Cir. 1979). “§ 5 (2)(f), which provided as follows: As a condition of its approval, under this paragraph, of any transaction involving a carrier or carriers by railroad subject to the provisions of this chapter, the Commission shall require a fair and equitable arrangement to protect the…”
Greyhound Corp. v. Mt. Hood Stages, Inc., 437 U.S. 322 (1978). “63 , 66, 49 U. S. C. § 5 (10) (1976 ed.), provides: "The Commission may from time to time, for good cause shown, make such orders, supplemental to any order made under paragraph (1), (2), or (8), of this section, as it may deem necessary or appropriate.”
Jackson Transit Auth. v. Local Div. 1285, Amalgamated Transit Union, 457 U.S. 15 (1982). “37 (1971), the Court ruled that a railroad's employees made out federal claims when they sought to enforce assurances made by the railroad to secure the Interstate Commerce Commission's approval of a consolidation under a provision of the Interstate Commerce Act, 49 U. S. C. § 5…”
United States v. Philadelphia Nat'l Bank, 374 U.S. 321 (1963). “§§ 1378 , 1384; 49 U. S. C. § 5 (11) and (13). Therefore, the exclusion of assets acquisitions in such industries from § 7 would seem to have little significance.”
Illinois Cent. R.R. Co. v. United States, 263 F. Supp. 421 (N.D. Ill. 1967). “The order, under § 5(2) of the Interstate Commerce Act, 49 U.S.C. § 5 (2), authorized the Missouri Pacific Railroad ("MoPac") to acquire control of the Chicago & Eastern Illinois Railroad ("Eastern"), with the condition that Eastern then negotiate to sell to the Louisville &…”
Erie-Lackawanna R.R. Co. v. United States, 259 F. Supp. 964 (S.D.N.Y. 1966). “21989 and 21990, were initiated by applications filed March 9, 1962.”
Order of R.R. Telegraphers v. Chicago & North W. Ry. Co., 362 U.S. 330 (1960). “[11] 49 U. S. C. § 5 (2) (f). And see § 5 (2) (c).”
Baltimore & Ohio R.R. v. United States, 386 U.S. 372 (1967). “481 , 49 U. S. C. § 5 (2). In its original order of April 6, 1966, the Commission found that the merger might divert a substantial amount of traffic from the Erie-Lackawanna Railroad Company (E-L), the Delaware and Hudson Railroad Company (D & H) and the Boston and Maine…”
Local Div. 732, Amalgamated Transit Union v. Metro. Atlanta Rapid Transit Auth., 667 F.2d 1327 (11th Cir. 1982). “In addition to the suggestive similarity of language, UMTA § 13(c) explicitly refers to 49 U.S.C. § 5 (2)(f) 19 and the legislative history of § 13(c) refers to § 5(2)(f) as a model.”
McLean Trucking Co. v. United States, 321 U.S. 67 (1944). “In July, 1941, it applied to the Interstate Commerce Commission for permission, under § 5 of the Interstate Commerce Act, as amended ( 49 U.S.C. § 5 ; 54 Stat. 898 , 905), to obtain control of eight motor carriers, through purchase of their capital stock, and to consolidate…”
49 U.S.C. § 5(11): 4 cases
Florida East Coast Ry. Co. v. United States, 242 F. Supp. 14 (M.D. Fla. 1965).
Chicago & North W. Ry. Co. v. Bhd. of Locomotive Engineers, 202 F. Supp. 277 (S.D. Iowa 1962).
Midwestern Mach. Co., Inc. v. Nw. Airlines, Inc., 990 F. Supp. 1128 (D. Minn. 1998).
Missouri Pac. R.R. v. Slayton, 407 F.2d 1078 (8th Cir. 1969).
49 U.S.C. § 5(14): 1 case
Am. Waterways Operators, Inc. v. United States, 386 F. Supp. 799 (D.D.C. 1974).
49 U.S.C. § 5(2): 7 cases
Bhd. of Locomotive Engineers, an Unincorporated Ass'n v. Chicago & North W. Ry. Co., a Corp., 314 F.2d 424 (8th Cir. 1963).
Breswick & Co. v. United States, 138 F. Supp. 123 (S.D.N.Y. 1956).
Nemitz v. Norfolk & W. Ry. Co., 309 F. Supp. 575 (N.D. Ohio 1969).
In re New York, N. H. & H. R., 169 F.2d 337 (2d Cir. 1948).
Gilbertville Trucking Co. v. United States, 196 F. Supp. 351 (D. Mass. 1961).
49 U.S.C. § 5(2)(a): 1 case
Cnty. of Marin v. United States, 150 F. Supp. 619 (N.D. Cal. 1957).
49 U.S.C. § 5(2)(b): 1 case
B-H Transfer Co. v. United States, 379 F. Supp. 1027 (M.D. Ga. 1974).
49 U.S.C. § 5(2)(f): 1 case
Constitutionality of Repealing the Emp. Prot. Provisions of the Reg'l Rail Reorganization Act (OLC 1981).
49 U.S.C. § 5(4): 4 cases
Florida East Coast Ry. Co. v. Jacksonville Terminal Co., 328 F.2d 720 (5th Cir. 1964).
Browning Freight Lines, Inc. v. Warberg Bros., 393 F. Supp. 127 (D. Idaho 1975).
Texas v. United States, 6 F. Supp. 63 (W.D. Mo. 1934).
Missouri Pac. R. v. United States, 4 F. Supp. 449 (E.D. Ky. 1933).
49 U.S.C. § 5(9): 3 cases
City of New Orleans v. Texas & Pac. Ry. Co., 195 F.2d 887 (5th Cir. 1952).
Baggett Transp. Co. v. United States, 206 F. Supp. 835 (N.D. Ala. 1962).
Greyhound Lines, Inc. v. United States, 301 F. Supp. 356 (N.D. Ill. 1969).
49 U.S.C. § 5(b)(5): 1 case
S. Ry. Co. v. United States, 412 F. Supp. 1122 (D.D.C. 1976).
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.