[an error occurred while processing this directive]
FindLaw: Practice Areas: Transportation Law: Supreme Court Cases
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
Transportation Law: Supreme Court Cases
- Am. Trucking Ass'n, Inc. v. Michigan Pub. Serv. Comm'n 496 U. S. 167 (1990) (A flat $100 fee that Michigan charges trucks engaging in intrastate commercial hauling does not violate the dormant Commerce Clause.)
- Burlington N. & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White 548 U. S. 53 (2006) (The anti-retaliation provision of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act does not confine the actions and harms it forbids to those that are related to employment or occur at the workplace. The provision covers those, and only those, employer actions that would have been materially adverse to a reasonable employee or job applicant.)
- CITY OF COLUMBUS v. OURS GARAGE & WRECKER SERV., INC. 49 U.S.C. section 14501(c), which preempts prescriptions by a state related to a price, route, or service of any motor carrier with respect to the transportation of property, does not bar a state from delegating to municipalities and other local units the state's authority to establish safety regulations governing motor carriers of property, including tow trucks.
- CSX Transp., Inc. v. Georgia State Bd. of Equalization ___ U. S. ___ (2007) (In the context of the valuation of property for tax purposes, the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 allows a railroad to attempt to show that state methods for determining the value of railroad property result in a discriminatory determination of true market value.)
- DEPT. OF TRANSP. v. PUB. CITIZEN 541 U. S. 752 (2004) (Because the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration lacks discretion to prevent operations of cross-border operations of Mexican motor carriers, neither the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 nor the Clean Air Act requires FMCSA to evaluate the effects of such operations.)
- ILLINOIS v. LIDSTER 540 U. S. 419 (2004) (Brief highway checkpoint stops, when appropriately tailored by police seeking information about a crime of considerable public concern that was in all likelihood committed by others, do not violate the Fourth Amendment rights of motorists.)
- KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc. ___ U. S. ___ (2007) (In a patent dispute involving adjustable pedal systems and raising issues regarding the "teaching, suggestion, or motivation" test for obviousness, a circuit court decision reversing summary judgment for defendant is reversed where, in rejecting the district court's rulings on obviousness, the Federal Circuit analyzed the issue in a narrow, rigid manner inconsistent with 35 U.S.C. section 103 and the Supreme Court's precedents.)
- Massachusetts v. Envtl. Prot. Agency ___ U. S. ___ (2007) (In an action brought by states, groups, and organizations alleging the EPA abdicated its responsibility under the Clean Air Act to regulate certain greenhouse gas emissions, a judgment finding that the EPA properly denied a petition for rule making is reversed where: 1) petitioners had standing to challenge the EPA's ruling; 2) the denial of a petition for rulemaking is reviewed to determine whether it was "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law;" 3) the EPA has the statutory authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles; and 4) the EPA rejected the rulemaking petition on impermissible grounds, and on remand the EPA must ground its reasons for action or inaction in the statute.)
- Mid-Con Freight Sys. v. Michigan Pub. Serv. Comm'n 545 U. S. 440 (2005) (A Michigan law which imposes an annual fee of $100.00 upon each Michigan license-plated truck that is "operating entirely in interstate commerce" is not preempted by 49 U.S.C. section 14504(b) since the fee requirement is not the kind of "State registration requirement" to which the federal statute refers.)
- NORFOLK & W. RY. CO. v. AYERS 538 U. S. 135 (2003) (Mental anguish damages resulting from the fear of developing cancer may be recovered under the Federal Employers' Liability Act, by a railroad worker suffering from actionable injury asbestosis caused by work-related asbestos exposure.)
- NORTON v. S. UTAH WILDERNESS ALLIANCE 542 U. S. 55 (2004) (The Bureau of Land Management's alleged failure to protect state lands from environmental damage caused by off-road vehicles was not remediable under the Administrative Procedure Act.)
- OLYMPIC AIRWAYS v. HUSAIN 540 U. S. 644 (2004) (Defendant is liable for the death of an international passenger because its conduct here constitutes an "accident" under Article 17 of the Warsaw Convention. Flight attendant's refusal to reseat the asthmatic passenger away from the smoking section was clearly external to him, and unexpected and unusual in light of industry standards, defendant's policy, and the simple nature of the requested accommodation.)
- PIERCE COUNTY v. GUILLEN 537 U. S. 129 (2003) (An evidentiary privilege, 23 U.S.C. section 409, which protects information related to certain federal highway safety programs from discovery or admission in certain federal and state trials, is aimed at improving safety in channels of commerce and is a proper exercise of Congress's Commerce Clause authority.)
- Rowe v. New Hampshire Motor Transp. Ass'n ___ U. S. ___ (2008) (A federal statute that prohibits states from enacting any law "related to" a motor carrier "price, route, or service" preempts two provisions of a Maine tobacco law, which regulate the delivery of tobacco to customers within the state.)
- SPRIETSMA v. MERCURY MARINE 537 U. S. 51 (2002) (A state common law tort action seeking damages from the manufacturer of an outboard motor, after a boating accident, is not pre-empted by either 1) the Federal Boat Safety Act of 1971, or 2) a Coast Guard decision as to regulation of propeller guards.)
- Volvo Trucks N. Am., Inc. v. Reeder-Simco GMC, Inc. 546 U. S. 164 (2006) (A manufacturer may not be held liable for secondary-line price discrimination under the Robinson-Patman Price Discrimination Act in the absence of a showing that the manufacturer discriminated between dealers competing to resell its product to the same retail customer.)
- Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation 546 U. S. 95 (2005) (Because Kansas' motor fuel tax is a nondiscriminatory tax imposed on an off-reservation transaction between non-Indians, the tax is valid and poses no affront to defendant's sovereignty.)
- YELLOW TRANSP., INC. v. MICHIGAN 537 U. S. 36 (2002) (The Interstate Commerce Commission's interpretation of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act's fee-cap provision is consistent with the language of that statute and reasonably resolves ambiguity therein, thus that interpretation must receive deference under Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837.)
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
[an error occurred while processing this directive]