U.S. Code » Title 49 » Subtitle SUBTITLE VII— AVIATION PROGRAMS › Part PART A— AIR COMMERCE AND SAFETY › Subpart subpart iii— safety › Chapter CHAPTER 449— SECURITY › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER I— REQUIREMENTS

49 U.S.C. § 6

REIMBURSABLE AGREEMENTS.

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 49 CasesGoogle Scholar

“Not later than 90 days after the enactment of this Act [Sept. 24, 2015], the Assistant Secretary shall provide to the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate an analysis of how the Administration can use cost savings achieved through efficiencies to increase over the next 5 fiscal years the funding available for checkpoint screening law enforcement support reimbursable agreements.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 237 cases, 1927–2015 · leading case: Trans Alaska Pipeline Rate Cases, 436 U.S. 631 (1978).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Trans Alaska Pipeline Rate Cases, 436 U.S. 631 (1978). · cites it 4× “charges must meet, and § 6 — which prohibits a carrier covered by Part I from engaging in interstate transportation unless its rates, fares, and charges have been filed and published and which, in addition, allows changes in any rate, fare, or charge to be made only after notice…”
United States v. Students Challenging Regulatory Agency Procedures (SCRAP), 412 U.S. 669 (1973). · cites it 4× “49 U. S. C. § 6 (3). [1] During that 30-day period, the Commission *673 may suspend the operation of the proposed rate for a maximum of seven months pending an investigation and decision on the lawfulness of the new rates.”
Yakus v. United States, 321 U.S. 414 (1944). · cites it 2× “49 U.S.C. §§ 6 (7), 10 (1); Armour Packing Co.”
United States v. W. Pac. R.R., 352 U.S. 59 (1956). · cites it 2× “380 , as amended, 49 U. S. C. § 6 (7), forbidding departures from the published tariff.”
United States v. Interstate Com. Comm'n, 198 F.2d 958 (D.C. Cir. 1952). · cites it 6× “Interstate Commerce Act § 6 (7), as amended, 49 U.S.C.A. § 6 (7). But the Commission not only found that the absorption provision became inapplicable, but concluded on another ground that the obligation embodied in it was discharged after June 15, 1942.”
Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Wichita Bd. of Trade, 412 U.S. 800 (1973). · cites it 2× “49 U. S. C. §§ 6 (3), 15 (1). Suspension of the Commission's order thus does not in itself preclude the carriers from implementing a new rate.”
S. Pac. Transp. Co., a Corp. v. Campbell Soup Co., a Corp., 455 F.2d 1219 (8th Cir. 1972). · cites it 5× “This court affirmed, observing that the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887, 1 as amended by section 2 of the Hepburn Act of 1906 2 ( 49 U.S.C. § 6 (7)), was designed to eliminate all forms of rate discrimination on interstate shipments.”
S. Pac. Co., a Corp. of the State of Delaware v. Miller Abattoir Co., a Corp. of the State of New Jersey, 454 F.2d 357 (3rd Cir. 1972). · cites it 5× “A contract to carry for less than tariff rates is void and will not prevent recovery of tariff rates.”
Interstate Com. Comm'n v. Inland Waterways Corp., 319 U.S. 671 (1943). · cites it 4× “566 , now 49 U.S.C. § 6 (11), set out in its present form in footnote 25, infra.”
United States v. Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co., 426 U.S. 500 (1976). · cites it 2× “49 U. S. C. § 6 (3). The Commission has the authority, during that 30-day period, to suspend the proposed tariff for a maximum of seven months in order to investigate the lawfulness of the new rates.”
United States v. United States Smelting Refining & Mining Co., 339 U.S. 186 (1950). · cites it 2× “49 U. S. C. § 6 (1) and (3). If the carrier makes a double or unreasonable charge, the industry may be heard upon the reasonableness of the rate.”
Illinois Cent. Gulf R.R. Co. v. Golden Triangle Wholesale Gas Co., 586 F.2d 588 (5th Cir. 1978). · cites it 2× “Although reviewing filed tariffs may be burdensome to shippers, to permit a tariff to be avoided when the railroad knows of its applicability and the shipper does not would foster the evil of rate discrimination that the Interstate Commerce Act was designed to eliminate.”
Show all 237 citing cases →
— 49 U.S.C. § 6(1) — 2 cases
Sun-Maid Raisin Growers Ass'n v. United States, 33 F. Supp. 959 (N.D. Cal. 1940).
Mexican Light & Power Co. v. Texas-Mexican Ry. Co., 190 S.W.2d 838 (Tex. App. 1945).
— 49 U.S.C. § 6(10) — 1 case
St. Louis Sw. Ry. Co. v. Garvey Elevators, Inc., 505 F.2d 625 (5th Cir. 1974).
— 49 U.S.C. § 6(13) — 1 case
Pennsylvania R. Co. v. United States, 55 F. Supp. 473 (D.N.J. 1943).
— 49 U.S.C. § 6(3) — 1 case
Potash Co. of Am. v. New Mexico Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 303 P.2d 908 (N.M. 1956).
— 49 U.S.C. § 6(7) — 4 cases
Consol. Freightways Corp. of Delaware v. Admiral Corp., 442 F.2d 56 (7th Cir. 1971).
S. Pac. Co., a Corp. of the State of Delaware v. Miller Abattoir Co., a Corp. of the State of New Jersey, 454 F.2d 357 (3rd Cir. 1972). “A contract to carry for less than tariff rates is void and will not prevent recovery of tariff rates.”
Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Springer, 172 F.2d 346 (7th Cir. 1949).
S. Ry. Co. v. United States, 186 F. Supp. 29 (N.D. Ala. 1960).
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.