Rexroth Hydraudyne B v. v. Ocean World Lines, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that ocean carriers “are subject to the jurisdiction of the FMC, not the STB,” and do not “qualify under Car-mack as ‘rail carriers’ subject to STB jurisdiction”
• applying the Shipping Act definitions of \common carrier” and \non-vessel-operating common carrier”
• “It is clear from Sompo that a ‘contractual provision extending COGSA’s terms inland must yield to Carmack’ if Carmack is applicable.”
• “It is clear from Sompo that a ‘contractual provision extending COGSA’s terms inland must yield to Carmack’ if Carmack is applicable.”
• noting recodification and lack of substantive changes
• noting recodification and lack of substantive changes

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).