Legal Opinion
Consolidated Freightways v. United Truck Lines
Oregon Supreme Court
Decided October 15, 1958PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtO’Connell, J.
This is an action brought by the plaintiff, a motor carrier engaged in transporting property, to recover damages resulting from the unauthorized diversion of traffic by the defendant, which is also a motor carrier. Both parties are common carriers of property in interstate commerce and are subject to the Motor Carrier Act, Title 49 HSCA, §§ 301, et seq. The plaintiff holds a certificate of public convenience and necessity from the Interstate Commerce Commission which authorizes it to transport property over U. S. Highway No. 30 between Boise, Idaho and Pasco, Washington, in- eluding the…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Cabell v. City of Cottage GroveOregon Supreme Court · 1942
- Pennsylvania Railroad v. Sonman Shaft Coal Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1916
- Akers Motor Lines, Inc. v. Malone Freight Lines, Inc.District Court, N.D. Alabama · 1950
- Horger v. Flagg, Utilities CommissionerOregon Supreme Court · 1948
3Cited by8 opinions
- Riss & Company v. Association of American RailroadsDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 1959
- McFaddin Express, Inc. v. Adley Corp.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1966
- Smith & Smith, Inc. v. South Carolina Public Service CommissionSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1978
- Smalley Transp. Co. v. Moed's Tr. Co.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 1979
- Pensick & Gordon, Inc. v. California Motor Express, Pensick & Gordon, Inc., a California Corporation v. California Motor Express, Limited, a CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1962
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.