§Why CasetextPricing

Patel v. Sure Hands Transportation, Llc et al

MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM with Brief In Support

27 Cited authorities

  1. Hillsborough County v. Automated Medical Labs

    471 U.S. 707 (1985)   Cited 1,192 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding local health ordinance not preempted because "the regulation of health and safety matters is primarily, and historically, a matter of local concern"

  2. Louisiana Public Service Commission v. Federal Communications Commission

    476 U.S. 355 (1986)   Cited 799 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "a federal agency may pre-empt state law only when and if it is acting within the scope of its congressionally delegated authority"

  3. Fla. Avocado Growers v. Paul

    373 U.S. 132 (1963)   Cited 1,568 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding federal regulation concerning maturity of avocados did not preempt California regulation, where it was not impossible for growers to comply with both regulations

  4. Morris v. Covan World Wide Moving, Inc.

    144 F.3d 377 (5th Cir. 1998)   Cited 1,465 times
    Holding that the Carmack Amendment preempted Plaintiff's claims for damages based on the carrier's alleged "egregious conduct in the course of discharging its duties under the shipping contract."

  5. Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp.

    331 U.S. 218 (1947)   Cited 2,165 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the clear statement rule may be satisfied where "the Act of Congress ... touch[es] a field in which the federal interest is so dominant that the federal system will be assumed to preclude enforcement of state laws on the same subject."

  6. Hines v. Davidowitz

    312 U.S. 52 (1941)   Cited 2,184 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Alien Registration Act of 1940 preempted Pennsylvania's alien registration requirements

  7. Thurston Motor Lines, Inc. v. Jordan K. Rand, Ltd.

    460 U.S. 533 (1983)   Cited 177 times
    Holding that "only [the Supreme] Court may overrule one of its precedents"

  8. Adams Express Co. v. Croninger

    226 U.S. 491 (1913)   Cited 893 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Carmack Amendment covers "the subject of the liability of the carrier under a bill of lading . . . so completely that there can be no rational doubt but that Congress intended to take possession of the subject, and supersede all state regulation with reference to it"

  9. New York, N. H. H.R. Co. v. Nothnagle

    346 U.S. 128 (1953)   Cited 226 times
    Establishing doctrine for common carriers

  10. Hughes v. United Van Lines, Inc.

    829 F.2d 1407 (7th Cir. 1987)   Cited 220 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that: "[w]hen findings are based on determinations regarding the credibility of witnesses, Rule 52 demands even greater deference to the trial court's findings; for only the trial judge [is in a position to be] aware of the variations in demeanor including but not limited to the actions, mannerisms, and facial expressions that bear so heavily on the listener's understanding of and belief in what is said."

  11. Rule 12 - Defenses and Objections: When and How Presented; Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Consolidating Motions; Waiving Defenses; Pretrial Hearing

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 12   Cited 346,341 times   923 Legal Analyses
    Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss

  12. Section 14706 - Liability of carriers under receipts and bills of lading

    49 U.S.C. § 14706   Cited 1,315 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Providing that a "carrier ... that delivers the property and is providing transportation or service subject to jurisdiction under [the Carmack Amendment] ... [is] liable to the person entitled to recover"