Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorKarns, Jack E.en_US
dc.contributor.authorMcIntyre, Roger P.en_US
dc.contributor.authorUhr, Ernest B.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2013-02-15T18:29:08Z
dc.date.available2013-02-15T18:29:08Z
dc.date.issued1996en_US
dc.identifier.citation29 Creighton L. Rev. 647 (1995-1996)en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10504/40134
dc.description.abstractINTRODUCTION|Until the June 1992 United States Supreme Court decision in Morales v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., the airline industry, the federal government, and a number of state attorneys general were locked in a dispute concerning whether states could regulate airline fare advertising under provisions of local consumer protection acts. This dispute centered on section 1305(a)(1) of the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 ("ADA"), which provides that the states are preempted from enacting or enforcing "any law, rule, regulation, standard, or other provision having the force and effect of law relating to rates, routes, or services of any air carrier." The airline industry argued that airline fare advertising fell within this umbrella language because the advertising related to "rates, routes, or services." On the other hand, state attorneys general sought to regulate this same advertising according to standards contained within state consumer protection acts. Under federal law, the Department of Transportation ("DOT") is responsible for regulating airline trade practices pursuant to the provisions of the ADA...en_US
dc.publisherCreighton University School of Lawen_US
dc.titlePolicy Conflict between State and Federal Government Efforts to Regulate Airline Avertising, Theen_US
dc.typeJournal Articleen_US
dc.rights.holderCreighton Universityen_US
dc.description.volume29en_US
dc.publisher.locationOmaha, Nebraskaen_US
dc.title.workCreighton Law Reviewen_US
dc.description.note1995-1996en_US
dc.description.pages647en_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record