Search results
In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit _____ Nos. 16‐2009, ‐2077, & ‐2980 ILLINOIS TRANSPORTATION TRADE ASSOCIATION, et al., Plaintiffs‐Appellants, v. CITY OF CHICAGO, Defendant‐Appellee, and
11 sty 2016 · Justia Opinion Summary. Plaintiffs, current and former Chicago taxi drivers, paid a “shift fee,” a lease payment that allows the driver to operate one of the defendants’ taxis and earn income. Weekly fees range from $500 to $800 or more.
The taxicab drivers alleged that the city took their property without just compensation and discriminated against them by failing to subject Uber and other technology companies to the taxi ordinance, which set taxi fares.
25 paź 2016 · In a pair of wins for drivers in Chicago and Milwaukee, a federal court ruled that taxi owners have no right to block competitors and are not entitled to a bailout.
12 paź 2016 · In a devastating legal blow to Big Taxi, the United States Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit in Chicago has ruled that Uber and taxis are not the same type of transportation service, and...
22 gru 2016 · THE REGULATION OF TAXICABS. IN CHICAGO* EDMUND W. KITCH, MARC ISAACSON and DANIEL KASPER. University of Chicago Law School. I. INTRODUCTION. STUDENTS of economics and urban transportation frequently cite the limita- tion on the number of taxicabs in most American cities as a clear case unwise government policy.
Chicago's taxi and livery companies are suing the city for allowing Uber and other ridesharing companies to operate under fewer regulations. The plaintiffs argue that the city's ordinances do not equally protect their property rights and deny them equal protection under the law.
