EFS National Bank v. Averitt Express, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• finding second and third requirements somewhat “contrary to the congressional intent behind the new law” and questioning their continued validity
• finding intent of the amendments was to place responsibility on shippers to take affirmative steps to determine contents of tariffs
• describing the current version of the Carmack Amendment that allows limitations to a carrier’s liability as “nearly identical to the pre-1996 version”
• finding intent of the amendments was to place responsibility on shippers to take affirmative steps to determine contents of tariffs
• finding second and third requirements somewhat \contrary to the congressional intent behind the new law\ and questioning their continued validity
• “EFS failed to request a copy of the tariff. The [BOL] is a sufficient written agreement by both parties allowing Averitt to limit its liability”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).