Search the opinions of the US Circuit Courts of Appeal

Did you mean highway DOT motor vehicle?

Your query +highway DOT motor vehicle returned 37 results.

	99-6329 -- TATE V. FARMLAND INDUSTRIES INC. -- 10/10/2001 Seizures have never been indicated on previous physicals. Dilantin was listed
	OPINION/ORDER Waivers are permitted if the Secretary of Transportation or his agent
	00-5021 -- CASSARA V. DAC SERVICES INC. -- 01/17/2002 1681g(a)(3)(A)(I) (2000).
	OPINION/ORDER With them on the briefs were Brian Wolfman. With him on the brief were Peter D. School buses ­ were receiving adequate training. The findings of the Adequacy Report were distilled into a Final Regulatory Evaluation. The agency Senior Circuit Judge Edwards was in regular active service at the time of oral argument. * 3 agreed to publish a final rule implementing entry level training requirements no later than May 31. School bus industries was inadequate.
	OPINION/ORDER Mazure were on brief. Were on brief. Joint Appendix (JA) 143.1 Be cause the OOSC are referenced in the regulations of respon dent Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Which is the entity within the United States Department of Transportation (DOT) responsible for regulating the commercial trucking industry as to safety matters. Both the FHWA and NTTC are non voting members of the CVSA. See also 49 U.S.C. s 31136(a)(1) (directing DOT to promulgate regulations to
	OPINION/ORDER Was not a commercial vehicle subject to such inspections. The validity of such an inspection is premised on the regulatory scheme giving notice to the members of the class of affected individuals that they are subject to such an inspection. Because Herrera did not have this notice. As he was in fact not a member of the class subject to these random inspections. We decline to extend the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule to this case because the Fourth Amendment violation is the result of an officer's mistaken belief that Herrera fell within the ambit of the Kansas regulatory scheme. Also there was a sign on the back. Did not have a Department of Transportation (
	OPINION/ORDER With him on the brief were Wilma A. United States Attorney at the time the brief was filed. The Department of Transportation's Office of Inspector General (
	TRKR UNITED SFTY V. MEAD, KENNETH M Argued the cause for appellee.
	OPINION/ORDER Are not eligible for overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act (
	OPINION/ORDER Although we conclude that the Petition for Review in this case was timely under the 59 day rule. Standard No. 208 was initially promulgated in 1967 and required manufacturers to install manual lap belts in all new motor vehicles. The ISTEA did not specify an air bag system design that manufacturers were required to use. Manufacturers were required to design air bags to protect adult passengers who chose not to wear seat belts. The dummy will experience excessive trauma during its
	OPINION/ORDER Which is part of the FEHA and provides. That
	OPINION/ORDER Whichever is greater. The district court held that
	OPINION/ORDER With him on the brief were Lois J. (B) that such activities will not (I) cause or contribute to any new violation of any standard in any area. Heads of federal agencies have
	OPINION/ORDER It did not begin the statutory process for determining whether vehicles carrying such brakes were noncompliant or the statutory process for ordering a recall of vehicles with these brakes. Which are based in part on Air Brake's representations about its antilock brake system and which NHTSA acknowledges are neither binding on the industry nor entitled to any administrative deference. The first Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard was promulgated in 1967 and NHTSA has promulgated numerous other standards since then. Buses and trailers equipped with air brakes have an
	OPINION/ORDER Entered into a conditional settlement agreement in the underlying state court wrongful death action in which a stipulated judgment was entered in the amount of $1. Century contends that its policy did not provide insurance for the accident because the tractor and trailer at the time was engaged in intrastate commerce. Which was limited exclusively to interstate commerce. J&T would contact each of the river terminals to determine which was offering the highest price for grain. The final destination was of no concern to him. Port Bunge ships over 99% of the corn it receives out of state by river barge.1 Once corn is delivered to the Bunge terminal. Its connection to the farmer is severed. Incoming shipments are commingled and the fungible nature of corn makes it impossible to connect any particular shipment of corn to any individual farmer. Carlson was killed in the collision. Bunge purchases corn by way of cash contracts for future delivery which provide that the farmer will ship a certain number of bushels of the commodity within a certain time frame and will be compensated at a predetermined price.
	INTL BRHD TMSTR V. FHA
	OPINION/ORDER Even if his conviction were lawful. His sentence is unconstitutional in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Apprendi v. Because we find that the District Court properly denied Wheat's motion to suppress and that the Apprendi error was harmless. Was being driven erratically in the northbound lane of Highway 169. The caller complained that the Nissan was passing on the wrong side of the road. Who was sitting in the front passenger seat. There were no other passengers. A check disclosed that Wheat's license was suspended but that notice of the suspension had The Honorable Mark W. Because Officer Samuelson was unfamiliar with the procedure for service. Because Officer Samuelson had noticed that the driver's hands were fidgeting. As Officer Samuelson was walking around toward the passenger side. Because it was raining during the duration of the stop. The dryness of the bag was remarkable. Wheat was indicted by a grand jury on one count of possession with intent to distribute more than 50 grams of a mixture or substance containing cocaine base.
	OPINION/ORDER We find that the FHWA's decision denying Parker a waiver from the federal vision regulations is arbitrary and capricious. The case is remanded so that the FHWA may create a functional capacity test consistent with its findings that an individual's driving record is indicative of future performance which will evaluate Parker's driving skills based upon his individual capabilities. There is no standard or test that the FHWA can rely on to ensure that granting a waiver to someone with multiple disabilities would achieve an equal or greater level of safety than if the waiver was not granted. The DOT contends that it cannot issue a waiver to a driver with multiple impairments without evidence that such waiver is consistent with the public interest and the safe operation of a CMV. It relied on several studies which indicated that
	OPINION/ORDER Whether defendant was eligible for a sentencing enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.1(b)(5) (2005)1 for transporting an alien in a manner creating a
	GRIFFITH V. GEN. MOTORS CORP. (8/29/2002, NO. 01-11062) Circuit Judge:
	OPINION/ORDER Circuit Judge: There are three appeals before us in this case. General Motors appeals the denial of its pre trial motion for summary judgment on the grounds that Griffith's seatbelt claim is preempted by federal law. Tina Griffith was riding in the cab of a 1990 Chevrolet Silverado C1500 pickup truck equipped with a bench seat. Griffith was seated in the Silverado cab's front center seat. Her husband was *Honorable Donald P. Sitting by designation. 2 driving and her daughter was on her other side. The driver's and right passenger's positions were equipped with lap shoulder belts. The center position was equipped with a lap belt only. All passengers were wearing their seat belts. 1 that the Silverado's seatbelt system was defective because of the lap belt only design for the center occupant. Contending that this claim is impliedly pre Griffith also alleged that the Silverado had a defectively designed dashboard (inadequate padding). Which was promulgated by the Department of Transportation (the
	GRIFFITH V. GEN. MOTORS CORP. (8/29/2002, NO. 01-11062) Circuit Judge:
	OPINION/ORDER Commercial truckers who cross the many bridges that connect New Jersey and Pennsylvania have turned to the federal courts in this action to complain that the tolls being charged on certain of those bridges are excessive. We must decide at the threshold whether the truckers have a private right of action under § 508 to maintain this suit. The District Court held that the truckers have neither an express nor an implied right of action. The
	OPINION/ORDER Was initiated by the plaintiff. While the company was under investigation by the Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the United States Department of Transportation (DOT) for alleged violations of federal criminal statutes. After its offices were subjected to a search and the seizure of company records. The complaint was based on the contention that the agents' action in executing the search warrant at the AirTrans offices was in violation of the Fourth Amendment because the DOT's Inspector General lacked authority to obtain and execute a search warrant. Principally because the court concluded that the search warrant was authorized under § 228 of the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999. The source of the plaintiff's difficulties with the government was an agreement that AirTrans had reached with defendants Samsung and U.S. It is not clear from the record in this case whether or not the DOT's ensuing investigation of AirTrans was precipitated by information sent by Ashworth. What is clear is that the investigation led to criminal litigation involving AirTrans in California and.
	OPINION/ORDER We are again asked whether a felony conviction for driving while intoxicated (DWI) is a violent felony under the Armed Career Criminal Act of 1984 (ACCA). 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii) (defining violent felony as a felony involving
	OPINION/ORDER Defendant Appellant Norfolk Southern Railway Company (
	OPINION/ORDER I DOT is authorized to designate material as hazardous and to prescribe regulations for the safe transportation of such material. 49 U.S.C. § 5103(a). See 40 C.F.R. § 1501.5(a)(2) (permitting a lead agency to supervise preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement if multiple agencies are involved in
	OPINION/ORDER The district court found that the residents had failed to state a claim under the Fair Housing Act and that the rest of their claims were time barred. Appellants seek to derail this highway construction project years after the original siting decision was made. Most of their claims are 3 now stale. There is one exception: We reinstate as timely appellants' challenge to the agencies' decision not to prepare a supplemental environmental impact statement in 1995. We also hold that appellants' Title VI and section 1985 claims against the federal defendants are barred by sovereign immunity. Route 50 is the principal latitudinal artery spanning Maryland's eastern peninsula. Their remedy of choice was to construct a bypass around the City. In order to receive federal funding for the Bypass the Maryland State Highway Administration (SHA) was required to follow the approval process established under the Federal Aid Highway Act (FAHA). Although the details of this process have evolved since 1975. Its essential mandates have remained constant.
	OPINION/ORDER Are Settlement Classes Cognizable Under Rule 23? 50 E. Are the Rule 23(a) and (b) Findings Required for Settlement Classes? IS THE SETTLEMENT CLASS PROPER HERE? 69 A. Were There Adequate Findings Under Rule 23(a)? 69 B. Could the Class Requisites Have Been Met On The Current Record? 70 1. Is the Settlement Fair. This is an appeal from an order of the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania approving the settlement of a large class action following its certification of a so called settlement class. The class members are purchasers. It was subsequently determined. May have had a design defect in their location of the fuel tank. Many of the class members are individual owners (i.e. While others are
	OPINION/ORDER As he was attempting to navigate a curve. Olson lost control of his Explorer because its cruise control actuator cable was defectively designed. Olson was unable to overcome even with hard braking. The case was tried to a jury. Olson were each 50% at fault. The jury would not have found that Mr. When an Explorer is accelerating. The power brakes are much less effective and require much more force to overcome the acceleration. The reason for this difficulty is that stepping on the brakes depletes the braking system's vacuum booster. When the vehicle is accelerating. The power braking system does not create another vacuum as efficiently as it does when the vehicle is not accelerating. Which was bent backwards during the accident. Ford countered with evidence that the seat was bent as a result of the impact with the tree. Olson contended that the brake pedal assembly was bent and the rubber brake pedal pad was distorted. She argued that this was consistent with her theory that Mr. Ford argued in response that the brake pedal assembly was not actually bent.
	OPINION/ORDER Was on brief. Middleton were on brief. Were on brief. The Blind Vendors' claim is that New Hampshire did not give proper
	OPINION/ORDER Our jurisdiction is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2000). Is not retroactive and therefore does not grant a private right of action to parties of leases executed prior to the effective date of the ICCTA. I. OOIDA is a business association of owner operators: individuals who own or control motor carrier equipment. Vanboetzelaer and Johnson are owneroperators and members of OOIDA. Prime is a regulated motor freight carrier. Prime and Success have the same officers. The 2 Lease Agreement provided that if the lease was terminated early. The Lease Agreement provided that if the lease was terminated early. The Service Contract requires the Owner Operator to provide a $1000 security deposit to ensure full performance of the lease obligations. 2 This agreement is now known as an
	OPINION/ORDER
	OPINION/ORDER We hold that the EPA did have the authority to consider jeopardy to listed species in making the transfer decision. The EPA's decision was arbitrary and capricious. The state transfer provisions of § 1342(b) have proven popular. Arizona was the forty fifth state to obtain pollution permitting authority from the EPA. If the Administrator determines that the state is not following those standards. Each agency must
	OPINION/ORDER Grimes contends that the district court did not have proper jurisdiction over the claims. She raises the following issues: (1) the district court should have remanded the case to the state court because it no longer had subject matter jurisdiction over the case when the Commonwealth of Kentucky was added as a party because (a) the court's diversity jurisdiction was destroyed and (b) the Commonwealth is immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment. (2) the trial court erred in instructing the jury on apportionment of fault (a) against the Commonwealth of Kentucky because the Commonwealth is immune from Although Grimes' lawyer. The daughter was dismissed as a plaintiff below and she is not mentioned in the appellate brief. We have no basis to adjudicate a claim by the daughter. 1 No. 01 6305 Grimes. No. 01 6305 liability and (b) against the driver of the truck because plaintiff's claim was an
	OPINION/ORDER Dismissed this diversity personal injury suit (the substantive issues in which are governed by Wisconsin law) on the ground that without expert testimony the plaintiffs could not prove their case. The jurisdictional statement in the appellants' 2 No. 05 4577 brief states that the federal district court's jurisdiction was based on diversity of citizenship
	OPINION/ORDER With whom Wistow & Barylick Inc. was on brief. Cavanagh & Cooney were on brief. She was twice falsely reassured (whether in honest error is not clear) that one had been called. They could not locate a pulse and discovered that the decedent's airway was blocked. Resuscitative efforts restored the decedent's heart to a normal rhythm and he was transported celeritously to a nearby hospital. Two are in the forefront. The centerpiece of the defendant's appeal is the assertion that the evidence did not forge a causal link between the failure promptly to summon an ambulance and the ensuing death. Since New Jersey law is less than explicit on one key issue that concerns us. As long as these signposts are legible. Our task is to ascertain the rule the state court would most likely follow under the circumstances. This kind of predictive approach is among our conceptions of law itself. 461 (1897) (