Legal Opinion
Flying Tiger Line, Inc. v. Pinto Trucking Service, Inc.
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Decided July 6, 1981No. Civ. A. 80-2583PublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
SUR PLEADINGS AND PROOF
LUONGO, District Judge.
Plaintiff, Flying Tiger Line, Inc. (FTL) brought this action to recover $37,722.12 pursuant to the Carmack Amendment. 49 U.S.C. § 11707. This sum represents the amount FTL was required to pay for the repair of a jet engine damaged in transit by defendant Pinto Trucking Service, Inc. (Pinto). Pinto concedes responsibility for the damage to the engine, but contends that it effectively limited its liability to the sum of $2,079.50, the released rate value of the engine. 49 U.S.C. § 10730.
In lieu of a trial the parties have submitted the case to me on…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Bradley v. School Bd. of RichmondSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- United States v. Schooner PeggySupreme Court of the United States · 1801
- Missouri Pacific Railroad v. Elmore & StahlSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
- American Railway Express Co. v. LindenburgSupreme Court of the United States · 1923
- Juliet M. D. Anton v. Greyhound Van Lines, Inc.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1978
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Hughes Aircraft Company National Union Fire Insurance Company v. North American Van Lines, Inc., and Does 1-100, InclusiveCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1992
- Acro Automation Systems, Inc. v. Iscont Shipping Ltd.District Court, D. Maryland · 1989
- W.C. Smith, Inc. v. Yellow Freight Systems, Inc.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1983
- Carmana Designs Ltd. v. North American Van Lines Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1991
- Johnson v. Bekins Van Lines Co.District Court, E.D. Texas · 1992
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.