Citation network
Square D Co. Vs. Niagara Frontier
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- May 27, 1986
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
Square D Co. v. NiagaraSearch
-
Frontier - 476 U.S. 409 (1986) U.S. Supreme Court Square D Co. v. NiagaraSearch
-
Frontier, 476 U.S. 409 (1986) Square D Co. v. NiagaraSearch
-
also sought declaratory and injunctive relief. The District Court dismissed the complaints on the authority of Keogh v. ChicagoSearch
-
in enacting the Motor Carrier Act of 1980, intended to change the Keogh rule. And cases like Carnation Co. v. PacificSearch
-
the impact of the Court's decision of an analogous question in 1922 in Keogh v. ChicagoSearch
-
by the tariff cannot be varied or enlarged by either contract or tort of the carrier. Texas & Pacific R. R. Co. v. MuggSearch
-
Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co. v. MaxwellSearch
-
Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. RobinsonSearch
-
Dayton Iron Co. v. CincinnatiSearch
-
Erie R. R. Co. v. StoneSearch
-
And they are not affected by the tort of a third party. Compare Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Ry. Co. v. FinkSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
from the antitrust laws and that its reasoning is thus inconsistent with later cases, particularly Carnation Co. v. PacificSearch
-
of Reed-Bulwinkle explains that it was enacted, at least in part, in response to this Court's decision in Georgia v. PennsylvaniaSearch
-
the general legislative purpose is inadequate for that formidable task. Petitioners' reliance on Carnation Co. v. PacificSearch
-
United States v. PhiladelphiaSearch
-
provision such as the exemption provisions of the Shipping and Agricultural Acts. See, e.g., United States v. PhiladelphiaSearch
-
United States v. NiagaraSearch
-
See Hishon v. KingSearch
-
McLain v. RealSearch
-
Hospital Building Co. v. TrusteesSearch
-
That was settled by United States v. Trans-MissouriSearch
-
Freight Association, 166 U. S. 290 , and United States v. JointSearch
-
sustained, whatever their nature, would have been recoverable in such proceedings. Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co. v. OhioSearch
-
See Meeker v. LehighSearch
-
ICC v. AmericanSearch
-
See Cannon v. UniversitySearch
-
Director, OWCP v. PeriniSearch
-
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. CurranSearch
-
Albernaz v. UnitedSearch
-
The Motor Carrier Act did change the terms of the Reed-Bulwinkle Act in significant respects, see ICC v. AmericanSearch
-
the private treble damages action in the structure of the Nation's antitrust laws. See, e.g., Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. SolerSearch
-
The specific Keogh holding, moreover, was not even implicated in Carnation Co. v. PacificSearch
-
NLRB v. LongshoremenSearch
-
Burnet v. CoronadoSearch
-
his opinion for the Court of Appeals, Judge Friendly cogently and comprehensively explained why the reasoning of Keogh v. ChicagoSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Square D Co. v. NiagaraSearch
-
of Keogh v. ChicagoSearch
-
Carnation Co. v. PacificSearch
-
Keogh v. ChicagoSearch
-
Texas & Pacific R. R. Co. v. MuggSearch
-
Compare Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Ry. Co. v. FinkSearch
-
Georgia v. PennsylvaniaSearch
-
United States v. Trans-MissouriSearch
-
and United States v. JointSearch
-
Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co. v. OhioSearch
-
Director, OWCP v. PeriniSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial