Supreme Court of the United States, 1988

Hughes v. United Van Lines, Inc.

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided February 29, 1988 · White

485 U.S. 913; 108 S. Ct. 1068; 99 L. Ed. 2d 248; 56 U.S.L.W. 3586; 1988 U.S. LEXIS 1061 (United States Reports)

Cases that cite this one

73 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

Rohner Gehrig Company, Inc. v. Tri-State Motor Transit (5th Cir. 1992)
Rohner Gehrig Company, Inc. v. Tri-State Motor Transit (5th Cir. 1991)
Shao v. Link Cargo (Taiwan) Limited (4th Cir. 1993)
Ting-Hwa Shao v. Link Cargo (Taiwan) Ltd. (4th Cir. 1993)
Luther Artis, Cross-Appellant v. Hitachi Zosen Clearing, Incorporated, Cross-Appellees (7th Cir. 1992)
John T.. Norton v. Jim Phillips Horse Transportation, Inc. (10th Cir. 1989)
Norton v. Jim Phillips Horse Transportation, Inc. (10th Cir. 1989)
Brown v. United States Steel Corp. (District Court, N.D. Illinois 1988)
Nelson v. Bekins Van Lines Co. (D. Minn. 1991)
Certain Underwriters at Interest v. United Parcel Service of America, Inc. (District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania 2013)
AIG Europe (Netherlands), N v. v. UPS Supply Chain Solutions, Inc. (District Court, S.D. New York 2011)
Eventus Marketing, Inc. v. Sunset Transportation Co. (United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida 2010)
KLLM, Inc. v. Watson Pharma, Inc. (District Court, S.D. Mississippi 2009)
Glass v. Crimmins Transfer Co. (District Court, C.D. Illinois 2004)
Nichols v. Mayflower Transit, LLC (District Court, D. Nevada 2003)
McLean v. Wheaton Van Lines, Inc. (Ala. Civ. App. 2002)
Schweitzer Aircraft Corp. v. Landstar Ranger, Inc. (District Court, W.D. New York 2000)
U.S. Sugar Co., Inc. v. American Sweeteners, Inc. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2000)
Industrial Risk Insurance v. United Parcel Service (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2000)
Mayflower Transit, Inc. v. Davenport (Ind. Ct. App. 1999)
Reeves v. Mayflower Transit, Inc. (United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama 1999)
Duerrmeyer v. Alamo Moving and Storage One, Corp. (District Court, W.D. Texas 1999)
Atwood v. U W Freight Line, Inc. (United States District Court for the District of Idaho 1999)
Tallyho Plastics, Inc. v. Big M Construction Co. (Tex. App. 1999)
Banos v. Eckerd Corp. (United States District Court Eastern District of Louisiana 1998)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Dissenting Opinion

Justice White,

dissenting:

The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held in this case that the Carmack Amendment to the Interstate Commerce *914Act, 49 U. S. C. § 10103, bars a shipper from pursuing state and common-law remedies against a carrier for damages to goods shipped in interstate commerce. The court reasoned that the Act was designed to establish “uniform federal guidelines” that would “remove the uncertainty surrounding a carrier’s liability when damage occurs to a shipper’s interstate shipment.” 829 F. 2d 1407, 1415 (1987). The congressional intent to eliminate such uncertainty would be defeated, said the court, if shippers were allowed to' choose among federal, state, and common-law remedies. The court’s decision relied in large measure on Adams Express Co. v. Croninger, 226 U. S. 491 (1913), which construed an earlier version of the Carmack Amendment as pre-empting state regulation of carrier liability.

The court recognized that its view of the pre-emptive scope of the Carmack Amendment was shared by three other Circuits. See 829 F. 2d, at 1414 (citing Air Products & Chemicals, Inc. v. Illinois Central Gulf R. Co., 721 F. 2d 483, 484-485 (CA5 1983), cert. denied, 469 U. S. 832 (1984); Fulton v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co., 481 F. 2d 326, 331-332 (CA8), cert. denied, 414 U. S. 1040 (1973); W. D. Lawson & Co. v. Penn Central Co., 456 F. 2d 419, 421 (CA6 1972)). The court noted that a divergent position had been taken by the Tenth Circuit, however, in Reed v. AAACON Auto Transport, Inc., 637 F. 2d 1302, 1304-1305 (1981); Litvak Meat Co. v. Baker, 446 F. 2d 329 (1971); and L. E. Whitlock Truck Service, Inc. v. Regal Drilling Co., 333 F. 2d 488 (1964). For example, the Litvak court held that the Carmack Amendment “did not oust all other remedial rights of shippers” against interstate carriers. 446 F. 2d, at 337.

Accordingly, because a conflict exists among the Circuits concerning the pre-emptive scope of the Carmack Amendment, I would grant certiorari.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.