Emerson Electric Supply Company v. Estes Express Lines Corporation

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the 1995 amendments do not reflect an intent to alter the two or more levels of liability requirement
• holding that carrier failed to limit its liability where tariff did not provide an option to declare a higher value with a corresponding level of liability
• “[A] carrier’s ability to limit [its] liability is a carefully defined exception to the Carmack Amendment’s general objective of imposing full liability for the loss of shipped goods.”
• “[A] carrier’s ability to limit [its] liability is a carefully defined exception to the Carmack Amendment’s general objective of imposing full liability for the loss of shipped goods.”
• “[A] carrier must continue to offer two or more rates with corresponding levels of liability in order to successfully limit its liability pursuant to the Carmack Amendment.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).