Citation network
MaislIn Indus. Vs. Primary Steel
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 21, 1990
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
-
Maislin Indus. v. PrimarySearch
-
Steel - 497 U.S. 116 (1990) U.S. Supreme Court Maislin Indus. v. PrimarySearch
-
Steel, 497 U.S. 116 (1990) Maislin Industries, Inc. v. PrimarySearch
-
Arizona Grocery Co. v. AtchisonSearch
-
has long held that the filed rate alone governs the legal rights of a shipper against a carrier, see, e.g., Keogh v. ChicagoSearch
-
and that the statute forbids equitable defenses to collection of the filed tariff, see, e.g., Texas & Pacific R. Co. v. MuggSearch
-
including the shipper's ignorance or the carrier's misquotation of rates, see, e.g., Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. MaxwellSearch
-
has been strictly applied and consistently adhered to by the Court. See, e.g., Thurston Motor Lines, Inc. v. JordanSearch
-
Armour Packing Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
provide the ICC authority to alter the requirements of those sections as interpreted by this Court. Cf. Square D Co. v. NiagaraSearch
-
ICC has primary responsibility for determining whether a rate or practice is reasonable. See Texas & Pacific R. Co. v. AbileneSearch
-
of the applicable rate to serve as a defense to the collection of the filed rate. See Southern Pacific Transp. Co. v. PageSearch
-
Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. MaxwellSearch
-
Court has long understood that the filed rate governs the legal relationship between shipper and carrier. In Keogh v. ChicagoSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Citations omitted.) See Square D Co. v. NiagaraSearch
-
Texas & Pacific R. Co. v. MuggSearch
-
Gulf, C. & S.F.R. Co. v. HefleySearch
-
as it has come to be known, is explained in Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. MaxwellSearch
-
Poor v. ChicagoSearch
-
Western Transp. Co. v. WilsonSearch
-
harsh effects of the filed rate doctrine, we have consistently adhered to it. See, e.g., Thurston Motor Lines, Inc. v. JordanSearch
-
Baldwin v. ScottSearch
-
Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. CentralSearch
-
unreasonable and because its construction is rational and consistent with the statute. See Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. NaturalSearch
-
As we stated in Armour Packing Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
Congress has not diverged from this interpretation, and we decline to revisit it ourselves. See California v. FERCSearch
-
thus stand revealed as flatly inconsistent with the statutory scheme as a whole, cf. Fort Stewart Schools v. FLRASearch
-
Dole v. UnitedSearch
-
to the administration of the Act. Regular Common Carrier Conference v. UnitedSearch
-
we agree that the Commission may have discretion to craft appropriate remedies for violations of the statute, see ICC v. AmericanSearch
-
Filing Requirements, 133 M.C.C. 150 (1983), aff'd sub nom. Central & Southern. Motor Freight Tariff Assn., Inc. v. UnitedSearch
-
for Independently Filed Rates, 1 I.C.C.2d 146 (1984), aff'd sub nom. Southern Motor Carriers Rate Conference v. UnitedSearch
-
Ibid. , quoting Seaboard System R. Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
generally to adopt new policies when faced with new developments in the industry, see American Trucking Assns., Inc. v. AtchisonSearch
-
provide the ICC authority to alter the well-established statutory filed rate requirements. As we said in Square D Co. v. NiagaraSearch
-
U.S. at 476 U. S. 420 (footnotes omitted). See also California v. FERCSearch
-
on Negotiated Motor Common Carrier Rates, 5 I.C.C.2d 623, 631 (1989) (citing American Trucking Assn., Inc. v. AtchisonSearch
-
re Caravan Refrigerated Cargo, Inc. (Supreme Beef Processors), 864 F.2d 388 (CA5 1989), with Delta Traffic Service v. TranstopSearch
-
Orscheln Bros. Truck Lines, Inc. v. ZenithSearch
-
West Coast Truck Lines, Inc. v. WeyerhaeuserSearch
-
Delta Traffic Service & Oneida Motor Freight, Inc. v. AppcoSearch
-
Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. CentralSearch
-
Kansas City Southern R. Co. v. CarlSearch
-
instead, they have required merely the application of a different filed tariff. For example, in Hewitt-Robins Inc. v. EasternSearch
-
filed rate, i.e., the intrastate rates, rather than departure from the tariff schedule entirely. See also Adams v. MillsSearch
-
the shipper for a reduced tariff also did not require deviation from the filed tariff. See Standard Brands, Inc. v. CentralSearch
-
Carriers Traffic Service, Inc. v. AndersonSearch
-
commercial services providing up-to-the-minute details of the carrier's rate schedule. But see Fort Howard Paper Co. v. MaislinSearch
-
U.S.A. Inc. v. NationalSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial