Legal Opinion

Consolidated Rail Corp. v. Arthur G. Silk, Inc.

Massachusetts District Court, Appellate Division

Decided June 16, 1982Published

1Opinion of the CourtCanavan, J.

This is an action by Consolidated Rail Corporation (hereinafter ‘ ‘Conrail”) to recover from ArthurG. Silk,Inc. (hereinafter “Silk”), as consignee of ten rail shipments, $5,468.63 in penalty charges assessed against those ten shipments because each shipment contained fiberboard cartons1 not properly marked for identification and allegedly violated an applicable rail transportation tariff. Conrail assessed the penalty charges against the shipments consigned to Silk after receipt, on each shipment, of an inspection report by the Railroad Perishable Inspection Agency (hereinafter “RPIA”) stating…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Cook v. Farm Service Stores, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1938
  2. Illinois Steel Co. v. Baltimore & Ohio RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1944
  3. Bendett v. BendettMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1943
  4. Southern Pacific Company, a Corporation of the State of Delaware v. Miller Abattoir Company, a Corporation of the State of New JerseyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1972
  5. Hathaway v. Checker Taxi Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1947

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API