Search for: "Morales v. Trans World Airlines, Inc." Results 1 - 20 of 26
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
21 Feb 2023, 9:01 am by DONALD SCARINCI
’” However, the Third Circuit further found that Groff’s proposed accommodation of being exempted from Sunday work would cause an undue hardship under Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. [read post]
23 Oct 2017, 12:39 pm by Barbara E. Lichman, Ph.D., J.D.
Trans World Airlines, Inc., 504 U.S. 374, 378-79 (1992), because the Connecticut statute does not “relate[] to rates, routes or services [of airlines],” Memorandum of Decision, p. 43; and (3) the Airport and Airway Improvement Act, 49 U.S.C. [read post]
9 Sep 2022, 2:24 pm by Kalvis Golde
Five years later, the court stated in Trans World Airlines v. [read post]
2 Feb 2023, 7:40 am by Kevin J. White and Scott W. Burton
The de minimis test was first set forth by the Supreme Court in Trans World Airlines, Inc. [read post]
23 Oct 2017, 4:39 am by Barbara E. Lichman, Ph.D., J.D.
Trans World Airlines, Inc., 504 U.S. 374, 378-79 (1992), because the Connecticut statute does not “relate[] to rates, routes or services [of airlines],” Memorandum of Decision, p. 43; and (3) the Airport and Airway Improvement Act, 49 U.S.C. [read post]
9 Aug 2023, 7:07 am by DONALD SCARINCI
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed based on the Court’s decision in Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. [read post]
11 Jul 2014, 6:35 am by Joy Waltemath
Trans World Airlines, Inc., that a state law may “relate to” prices, routes, or services for preemption purposes even if its effect is only indirect, but that a state law connected to prices, routes, or services in “too tenuous, remote, or peripheral a manner” is not preempted. [read post]
19 May 2009, 4:47 am
Trans World Airlines, Inc., 504 U.S. 374, 384 (1992) (citation omitted), and that Congress is presumed to legislate with knowledge of then existing law. [read post]
30 Jun 2023, 1:30 pm by vcadmin
Based on a Supreme Court decision issued almost 50 years ago, Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. [read post]