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. § 9

INTEROPERABILITY REVIEW.

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 49 CasesGoogle Scholar
“(a)In General.—Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act [Sept. 24, 2015], the Assistant Secretary shall, in consultation with the Assistant Secretary of the Office of Cybersecurity and Communications, conduct a review of the interoperable communications capabilities of the law enforcement, fire, and medical personnel responsible for responding to a security incident, including active shooter events, acts of terrorism, and incidents that target passenger-screening checkpoints, at all airports in the United States at which the Administration performs, or oversees the implementation and performance of, security measures.“(b)Report.—Not later than 30 days after the completion of the review, the Assistant Secretary shall report the findings of the review to the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate.”
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 94 cases, 1928–2000 · leading case: United States v. Interstate Com. Comm'n, 337 U.S. 426 (1949).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
United States v. Interstate Com. Comm'n, 337 U.S. 426 (1949). · cites it 7× “Section 9 provides-in part: “Any person or persons claiming to be damaged by any common carrier . . . may either make complaint to the commission .”
Montana-Dakota Utils. Co. v. Nw. Pub. Serv. Co., 341 U.S. 246 (1951). · cites it 4× “382 , 384-385, as amended, 49 U. S. C. §§ 9 , 16 (1); cf. Act of Aug.”
United States v. ICC, 337 U.S. 426 (1949). · cites it 7× “Section 9 provides in part: "Any person or persons claiming to be damaged by any common carrier. . . may either make complaint to the commission .”
Reiter v. Cooper, 507 U.S. 258 (1993). “See 49 U. S. C. § 9 (1946 ed.). Moreover, all that Crancer held was that “there was no abuse of discretion by the trial judge,” since the equities balanced against waiting for the ICC’s determination.”
Interstate Com. Comm'n v. Baltimore & Annapolis R.R., 398 F. Supp. 454 (D. Maryland 1975). · cites it 5× “In a motion to dismiss Alco’s claim for damages, B & A contends that Aleo is barred from suing in federal court on its claims under sections 1(4) and 1(11) because it has made an election of remedies under 49 U.S.C. § 9 (1970) by proceeding initially before the Commission.”
Robert Hansen, D/B/A Hansen Trucking v. Norfolk & W. Ry. Co., 689 F.2d 707 (7th Cir. 1982). · cites it 2× “The plaintiff’s contention ignores the history of § 11705(c)(1) and is inconsistent with the cases that have construed the language of this provision. Section 11705(c)(1) was enacted in 1978, Pub.”
Stevens v. Marks, 383 U.S. 234 (1966). · cites it 2× “, 49 U. S. C. § 9 (1964 ed.) See generally Murphy v.”
L. Singer & Sons v. Union Pac. R. Co., 311 U.S. 295 (1940). · cites it 2× “382 , 49 U.S.C. § 9 , permits any person "claiming to be damaged" by a carrier to make complaint to the Commission or to bring suit in a district court.”
Brogdon Ex Rel. Cline v. Nat'l Healthcare Corp., 103 F. Supp. 2d 1322 (N.D. Ga. 2000). “49 U.S.C.A. § 9 (repealed 1978); cf. 49 U.”
Robert Ellingson, Jr. v. Burlington N., Inc., Dba Burlington N. Ry., & W. Pac. R.R. Co., a Corp., 653 F.2d 1327 (9th Cir. 1981). “49 U.S.C. § 9 requires an election between the ICC and district court when a party claims to have been damaged by a carrier subject to the Interstate Commerce Act ( 49 U.”
S. Pac. Transp. Co., Cross-Appellees v. San Antonio, Texas, Acting by & Through Its City Pub. Serv. Bd., Cross-Appellant, 748 F.2d 266 (5th Cir. 1984). “49 U.S.C. § 9 (1970) (emphasis supplied).”
United States v. United States Smelting Refining & Mining Co., 339 U.S. 186 (1950). “49 U. S. C. §§ 9 , 13, 15. Finally it is contended that the District Court judgment should be affirmed because there was no appeal from the judgment and mandate when the case was sent back to the Commission, the court having found that there was no evidence to sustain a…”
Show all 94 citing cases →
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.