Cases from cite.case.law:

DIEHL, v. CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC., 349 F. Supp. 3d 487 (W.D. Pa. 2018)

. . . . §§ 215.9, 215.11, 215.13, 232.15, and 232.103 and argues that under the first step of the FRSA preemption . . . a qualified inspector before operating a train, including a duty to comply with 49 C.F.R. §§ 215.9, 215.11 . . . Plaintiff primarily relies on 49 C.F.R. §§ 215.11 and 215.13 to support her claim that she has sufficiently . . . Under § 215.11, "[e]ach railroad that operates railroad freight cars to which this part applies shall . . . designate persons qualified to inspect railroad freight cars for compliance with this part." 49 C.F.R. § 215.11 . . .

ZIMMERMAN, v. NORFOLK SOUTHERN CORPORATION, 706 F.3d 170 (3d Cir. 2013)

. . . . §§ 215.11 and 215.13, which require railroads to inspect tracks and freight cars. . . .

L. D. GRADE, v. BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY, a, 676 F.3d 680 (8th Cir. 2012)

. . . . § 215.11(a). . . .

ALLIANCE FOR THE WILD ROCKIES v. L. COTTRELL,, 632 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2011)

. . . . § 215.11(a) (including as appeal-able decisions those for “projects and activities implementing land . . .

ALLIANCE FOR WILD ROCKIES v. L. COTTRELL,, 622 F.3d 1045 (9th Cir. 2010)

. . . . § 215.11(a) (including as appeal-able decisions those for “projects and activities implementing land . . .

FOREST SERVICE EMPLOYEES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS v. UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE,, 689 F. Supp. 2d 891 (W.D. Ky. 2010)

. . . . § 1612; 36 CFR § 215.11. . . . While several decisions of the Forest Service are subject to appeal under 36 CFR § 215.11, “subsequent . . .

ROBINSON, v. GRAHAM,, 671 F. Supp. 2d 338 (N.D.N.Y. 2009)

. . . Penal Law § 215.00), Tampering with a Witness in the Third Degree (Penal Law § 215.11[1]), and Tampering . . .

BLUE LAKE FOREST PRODUCTS, INC. v. UNITED STATES, v. CLR v., 86 Fed. Cl. 366 (Fed. Cl. 2009)

. . . . §§ 215.11 etseq. . Susan M. . . .

SIERRA CLUB, v. R. KIMBELL, Ed, 595 F. Supp. 2d 1021 (D. Minn. 2009)

. . . Section 215.11(a) provides that only parties who have submitted comments may file appeals with respect . . . to site-specific actions. 36 C.F.R. §§ 215.11(a)-(b), 215.13(e). . . .

HENNING, v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY,, 530 F.3d 1206 (10th Cir. 2008)

. . . . §§ 215.11 and 215.13. Mehl, 417 F.Supp.2d at 1116-17. . . . . § 215.11(b) (requiring inspectors to meet minimum qualifications); Id. § 215.13; 45 Fed.Reg. 26708, . . .

BRADFORD, Jr. v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY,, 491 F. Supp. 2d 831 (W.D. Ark. 2007)

. . . . §§ 215.13, 215.11, 215.123, 215.127. . . . (citing 49 C.F.R. §§ 215.13, 215.11, 215.123, 215.127). . . . the extent Plaintiffs state claims for negligent inspection, those claims are preempted. 49 C.F.R. § 215.11 . . .

HAWLEY, v. DELAWARE AND HUDSON RAILWAY COMPANY, d b a C. P., 514 F. Supp. 2d 650 (M.D. Pa. 2007)

. . . (c) At a location where a person designated under § 215.11 is not on duty for the purpose of inspecting . . .

MEHL, v. CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY, LIMITED d b a, 417 F. Supp. 2d 1104 (D.N.D. 2006)

. . . . §§ 215.13, 215.11, 215.123, 215.127. . . . federal regulations and statutes as to the (1) negligent inspection claims: 49 C.F.R. §§ 215.9(a)-(b), 215.11 . . .

In DERAILMENT CASES. By By By By By By By By By By By By By By St. v. Fe a A v. Fe a v. Fe a a v. Fe By v. Fe A A By v. Fe A A v. Fe A A v. Fe a v. Fe a a v. Fe a Fe a a v. Fe a a v. Fe a a By v. Fe A A v. Fe a St. v. Fe A a v. Fe a a v. Fe a a, 416 F.3d 787 (8th Cir. 2005)

. . . Id. at § 215.11. . . .

FIRST NATIONAL BANK IN MANITOWOC, v. CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANY, 321 F. Supp. 2d 988 (E.D. Wis. 2004)

. . . . § 215.11(4) contains a similar requirement as to savings and loan associations. . . .

ANGELES, v. GREINER,, 267 F. Supp. 2d 410 (E.D.N.Y. 2003)

. . . Penal Law § 215.11(1). . . .

UTAH ENVIRONMENTAL CONGRESS, v. J. ZIEROTH, La U. S., 190 F. Supp. 2d 1265 (D. Utah 2002)

. . . . §§ 215.3, 215.7, 215.11(a). . . .

In SCOBEE,, 269 B.R. 678 (Bankr. W.D. Mo. 2001)

. . . monthly expenses in the amount of $3,479.47, therefore, she scheduled disposable income in the amount of $215.11 . . .

GREGSON v. U. S. FORESTRY SERVICE, St. U. S. v. ARKANSAS FORESTRY ASSOCIATION, St., 19 F. Supp. 2d 925 (E.D. Ark. 1998)

. . . . § 215.11(a). . . .

KENTUCKY HEARTWOOD, INC. v. WORTHINGTON,, 20 F. Supp. 2d 1076 (E.D. Ky. 1998)

. . . . §§ 215.7, 215.11— 215.19 (1997). . . .

In BIG WHEEL HOLDING COMPANY, INC. BIG WHEEL HOLDING COMPANY, INC. v. FEDERAL WHOLESALE CO. EAST, BIG WHEEL HOLDING COMPANY, INC. v. FEDERAL WHOLESALE CO., 223 B.R. 669 (Bankr. D. Del. 1998)

. . . The last three payments from the Debtor to Federal East occurred after June 11 ($44,-215.11 on June 15 . . .

BERTHELOT, v. TRAVELERS INSURANCE CO., 973 F. Supp. 596 (E.D. La. 1997)

. . . They contend (1) that La.Rev.Stat. 22:215.11 requires insurance companies to inform both beneficiaries . . . This language is identical to La.Rev.Stat. 22:215.11 thus bringing the policy in line with state law . . . Rev.Stat. 22:215.11, makes no mention of any requirement that insurance companies must give notice that . . . As such, it is ludicrous to contemplate such an “implied” duty in La.Rev.Stat. 22:215.11. . . . It is contained at La.Rev.Stat. 22:215.11. . . .

COLLINS, Jr. Sr. v. RESTO,, 746 F. Supp. 360 (S.D.N.Y. 1990)

. . . That contractual obligation is required by regulation. 19 N.Y.C.R.R. 215.11 provides: “The gloves shall . . .

In BATES, 58 B.R. 915 (Bankr. W.D. Tenn. 1986)

. . . . § 215.11. Section 504 of Title 12 of the U.S. . . .

UNITED STATES v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF CITY OF CHICAGO,, 621 F. Supp. 1296 (N.D. Ill. 1985)

. . . conduct workshops and training sessions for administrators, teachers, and para-professionals. (34 C.F.R. 215.11 . . .