Legal Opinion
Interstate Commerce Commission v. Texas
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided January 20, 1987No. 85-1222PublishedCited by 22 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Stevens
Trailer-on-flatcar (TOFC or “piggyback”) service, a form of mixed train and truck transportation, enables a carrier to transport a trailer and its contents over rail on a flatcar and then to haul the trailer on the highway. The goods need not be unloaded and reloaded when they move from the rail mode to the truck mode; the shipment remains within the trailer or container during the entire journey. Various forms of TOFC and container-on-flatcar (COFC) 1 service have been offered to the public by railroads, motor carriers, and freight forwarders since the 1930’s. 2 These cases concern the…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- American Trucking Associations, Inc. v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1967
- The Railroad Commission of Texas v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Association of American Railroads, IntervenorCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1985
- American Trucking Associations, Inc. And Saia Motor Freight Lines, Inc. v. Interstate Commerce Commission and United States of America, Board of Commissioners of the Port of New Orleans v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce CommissionCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1981
- Texas v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1985
- Interstate Commerce Commission v. TexasSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
3Cited by22 opinions
- Republic of Sudan v. HarrisonSupreme Court of the United States · 2019
- City of Auburn v. United States GovernmentCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1998
- In the Matter of Iowa Railroad Company, Debtor. Union Pacific Railroad Company v. Terry F. Moritz, Trustee of Iowa Railroad CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1988
- City of Auburn, a Municipal Corporation of the State of Washington v. The United States Government and the Surface Transportation Board, an Agency of the United States Government King County, a Washington Municipal Corporation Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corporation, a Delaware Corporation Burlington Northern Railroad Company, a Delaware Corporation, City of Auburn, a Municipal Corporation of the State of Washington City of Yakima, a Municipal Corporation of the State of Washington City of Kent, a Municipal Corporation of the State of Washington v. U.S. Government the Surface Transportation Board, an Agency of the United States Government, Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corporation, Burlington Northern Santa Fe Acquisition, Inc. ("Bnsf Acquisition") and the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company ("Bn/santa Fe"), Respondents-Intervenors. City of Auburn, a Municipal Corporation of the State of Washington v. U.S. Government the Surface Transportation Board, an Agency of the United States Government, and Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company, Intervenors/respondentsCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1998
- Sperling v. WhiteDistrict Court, C.D. California · 1998
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.