MARYLAND ET AL.

v.

ANDERSON

Citator

Cited By (18 total)

• Underwriters AT Lloyds OF London v. N. Am. van Lines, 890 F.2d 1112 (10th Cir. 1989)
  …ject the plaintiff’s argument and their reliance on the cases of the Tenth Circuit and hold that the remedy provision of the Carmack Amendment preempts all state and common law remedies inconsistent with the Interstate Commerce Act_”), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 913, 108 S.Ct. 1068, 99 L.Ed.2d 248 (1988); Hopper Furs, Inc. v. Emery Air Freight Corp., 749 F. 2d 1261, 1264 (8th Cir.1984) (“A shipper who brings a negligence action may not recover in excess of the amount specified in the receipt or bill of lading.”…
• Bio-Lab, Inc. v. Pony Express Courier Corp., 911 F.2d 1580 (11th Cir. 1990)
  …under the circumstances surrounding the transportation. These sections are recodifications of the Carmack Amendment and are commonly referred to by that name. Hughes v. United Van Lines, Inc., 829 F. 2d 1407, 1412 n. 6 (7th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 913, 108 S.Ct. 1068, 99 L.Ed.2d 248 (1988). The critical issue, as we see it, is whether the waybill issued at the time of shipment fulfills the statutory requirement of a written agreement establishing a value of $250, notwithstanding Bio-Lab’s declar…
• Carmana Designs Ltd. v. N. Am. van Lines Inc., 943 F.2d 316 (3d Cir. 1991)
  …of liability; and (4) issue a receipt or bill of lading prior to moving the shipment. Norton v. Jim Phillips Horse Transp., 901 F. 2d 821, 827 (10th Cir.1989) quoting Hughes v. United Van Lines, 829 F. 2d 1407, 1415-16 (7th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 913, 108 S.Ct. 1068, 99 L.Ed.2d 248 (1988). The burden of establishing that these requirements have been met rests with the carrier. Acro Automation Systems v. Iscont Shipping Ltd., 706 F.Supp. 413, 416 (D.Md.1989); Flying Tiger Line v. [*320] Pinto Tru…