New York Susquehanna and Western Railway Corp. v. Jackson

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that ICC-TA does not pre-empt state regulation where the regulation does not unreasonably burden rail operations and does not discriminate against railroads
• noting that \Hi Tech was not CPR's agent\
• agreeing “that a state law that affects rail carriage survives preemption if it does not discriminate against rail carriage and does not unreasonably burden rail carriage”
• agreeing “that a state law that affects rail carriage survives preemption if it does not discriminate against rail carriage and does not unreasonably burden rail carriage”
• “The first question to which we turn is whether the activities at issue are ‘transportation 3 by rail carrier,’ and thus subject to the [ICCTA].”
• “A commercial enterprise that holds itself out to the public as offering to transport freight or passengers for a fee.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).