U.S. Code » Title 49 » Subtitle SUBTITLE X— MISCELLANEOUS › Chapter CHAPTER 801— BILLS OF LADING

49 U.S.C. § 80102

Application

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 49 CasesGoogle Scholar
This chapter applies to a bill of lading when the bill is issued by a common carrier for the transportation of goods—(1) between a place in the District of Columbia and another place in the District of Columbia;(2) between a place in a territory or possession of the United States and another place in the same territory or possession;(3) between a place in a State and a place in another State;(4) between a place in a State and a place in the same State through another State or a foreign country; or(5) from a place in a State to a place in a foreign country.(Pub. L. 103–272, § 1(e), July 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 1346.)

Historical and Revision Notes

Revised

Section

Source (U.S. Code)

Source (Statutes at Large)

80102

49 App.:81.

Aug. 29, 1916, ch. 415, § 1, 39 Stat. 538.

In this chapter, the words “common carrier” are substituted for “carrier” because the source provisions restated in this section provide that this chapter applies to bills of lading issued by common carriers.

In clause (2), the words “territory or possession” are substituted for “Territory” for consistency in the revised title and with other titles of the United States Code.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1994–2022 · leading case: Dynamic Worldwide Logistics, Inc. v. Exclusive Expressions, LLC, 77 F. Supp. 3d 364 (S.D.N.Y. 2015).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Dynamic Worldwide Logistics, Inc. v. Exclusive Expressions, LLC, 77 F. Supp. 3d 364 (S.D.N.Y. 2015). “23 at 7-8 (citing 49 U.S.C § 80102). Regardless, since the Complaint asserts that the bills were negotiable and neither party has produced the bills themselves, the Court must accept the fact as true.”
Schultz v. Ford Motor Co., 822 N.E.2d 645 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005). “" 49 U.S.C. § 80102 (a2)(Q). The Senate Report accompanying the original Safety Act bill stated that "[the federal minimum safety standards need not be interpreted as restricting state common law standards of care.”
BII Fin. Co. v. U-States Forwarding Servs. Corp., 2002 A.M.C. 964 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002). “§§ 80101-80116 ), when applicable, preempts much of the application of division 7 of the California Uniform Commercial Code (U.S. Const., art.”
Duck Head Footwear v. Mason & Dixon Lines, Inc., 41 F. App'x 692 (4th Cir. 2002). “49 U.S.C.A. § 80102 (West 1997). Two aspects of this section are noteworthy here.”
Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania v. Allite, Inc., 40 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 1066 (Mass. 2000). “See 49 U.S.C. § 80102 (1994). Because Federal law supersedes contrary State law, “[w]henever the FBLA is applicable, it rather than Article 7 controls.”
Ziraat Bankasi v. Stand. Chartered Bank, 644 N.E.2d 272 (NY 1994). “), a statute that would have controlled here had the bill of lading not reflected shipment of goods entirely outside the United States (see, 49 USC § 80102 ; UCC 7-103). Like UCC 7-507, the FBLA imposes a warranty of genuineness on the transferor of a bill of lading (see, 49 USC…”
Coast to Coast Seafood, Inc. v. Assurances Generales de France, 50 P.3d 662 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 3× “49 U.S.C. §§ 80102 , 80113; Portland Fish Co.”
Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's v. CSX Transp., Inc. (S.D. Ill. 2022). “49 U.S.C.A. § 80102 is entitled, “Application” and states in pertinent part, “This chapter applies to a bill of lading when the bill is issued by a common carrier for the transportation of goods – (3) between a place in a State and a place in another State;” Nevertheless, when…”
Yang Ming Marine Transp. Corp. v. Oceanbridge Shipping Int'l, Inc., 48 F. Supp. 2d 1032 (C.D. Cal. 1999). “” 49 U.S.C. § 80102 ; Dei Dogi Calzature S.”
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.