green
Positive treatment
Trending · 89 recent citers
Quoted verbatim 5×
22.7 score
G Cite
cited 4× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 2010 · 2 courts ·
…congress made clear that the preemptive scope of section 343-1 was to sweep no further than the plain language of the statute itself.
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 2008 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2008
2017
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 27 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Source Capital Funding Incorporated v. Barrett Financial Group LLC
s state and federal laws impose 24 identical requirements regarding the disclosure of the use of artificial coloring, compliance 25 with one necessarily ensures compliance with the other.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Allergan, Inc. v. Athena Cosmetics, Inc.
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (quoted)
eference should be paid to congress's detailed attempt to clearly define the scope of preemption under the fdca.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
In Re Ferrero Litigation
(2×)
congress made clear that the preemptive scope of .section 343-1 was to sweep no further than the plain language of the statute itself.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Red v. Kraft Foods, Inc.
(2×)
congress made clear that the preemptive scope of section 343-1 was to sweep no further than the plain language of the statute itself.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Chacanaca v. QUAKER OATS COMPANY
(2×)
congress made clear that the preemptive scope of section 343-1 was to sweep no further than the plain language of the statute itself.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Scheibe v. Prosupps USA, LLC
Thus, “private plaintiffs may bring only actions to enforce violations of ‘state laws imposing requirements identical to those contained in the [Act].’” Kroessler v. CVS Health Corp., 977 F.3d 803, 808 (9th Cir. 2020) (emphasis in original) (quoting Farm Raised Salmon Cases, 175 P.3d 1170, 1177 (Cal. 2008)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Gillian Davidson v. Sprout Foods, Inc.
We said that “private plaintiffs may bring only actions to enforce violations of ‘state laws imposing requirements identical to those contained in the FDCA.’” Id. at 808 (quoting the California Supreme Court in Farm Raised Salmon Cases, 175 P.3d 1170, 1177 (2008) (emphasis in the original)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Hormel Corp.
See Fla. Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul, 373 U.S. 132, 144 (1963) (“States have always possessed a legitimate interest in the protection of their people against fraud and deception in the sale of food products . . . within their borders.”) (internal quotations and alterations omitted); Farm Raised Salmon Cases, 175 P.3d 1170, 1176 (Cal. 2008) (“Laws regulating the proper marketing of food, including the prevention of deceptive sales practices,” are traditionally a domain of the states).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
First Resort, Inc. v. Dennis Herrera
In the area of false advertising, albeit in the context of federal preemption, the California Supreme Court has stated that “consumer protection laws such as the ... false advertising law ... are within the states’ historic police powers....” Farm Raised Salmon Cases, 42 Cal.4th 1077 , 72 Cal.Rptr.3d 112 , 175 P.3d 1170, 1176 (2008) (emphasis added).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Grocery Manufacturers Ass'n v. Sorrell
See Reid v. Johnson & Johnson, 780 F.3d 952, 959 (9th Cir. 20Í5) (observing that the NLEA “does not preempt any state law unless the law is expressly preempted,” notwithstanding 21 C.F.R. § 100.1 (c)(4)) (internal quotation marks omitted); In re Farm Raised Salmon Cases, 42 Cal.4th 1077 , 72 Cal.Rptr.3d 112 , 175 P.3d 1170, 1179 (Cal.2008) (holding that “Congress made clear that the preemptive scope of section 343-1 was to sweep no further than the plain language of the statute itself’); see also NYSRA, 556 F.3d at 126 (noting the court would “owe deference to the FDA’s reading�…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Reid v. Johnson & Johnson & McNeil Nutritionals, LLC
See POM Wonderful, 134 S.Ct. at 2238 (“[B]y taking care to mandate express preemption of some state laws, Congress if anything indicated that it did not intend the FDCA to preclude requirements arising from other sources.” (emphasis added)); Farm Raised Salmon Cases, 42 Cal.4th 1077 , 72 Cal.Rptr.3d 112 , 175 P.3d 1170, 1178-84 (2008).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Regan v. Sioux Honey Ass'n Cooperative
Indeed, the purpose of the NLEA was to “create uniform national standards regarding the labeling of food and to prevent states from adopting inconsistent requirements with respect to the labeling of nutrients.” Farm Raised Salmon Cases, 42 Cal.4th 1077 , 72 Cal.Rptr.3d 112 , 175 P.3d 1170, 1175 (2008).
cited
Cited "see"
James Kroessler v. Cvs Health Corporation
See Farm Raised Salmon Cases, 175 P.3d 1170, 1177 (Cal. 2008). 3 We refer to the FDCA, NLEA, and DSHEA collectively as “the FDCA.” KROESSLER V.
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Superior Court of L. A. Cnty.
(2×)
In their reply, the People cite to two unpublished district court opinions, Kindred v. California Dept. of State Hospitals-Coalinga (C.D.Cal., Nov. 13, 2017, No. 8:17-cv-00047-DSF-KES) 2017 WL 7163929 , report and recommendation adopted in Kindred v. California Dept. of State Hospitals-Coalinga (C.D.Cal., Jan. 30, 2018, No. SA CV 17-00047-DSF (KES)) 2018 WL 626231 , and Hunter v. King (E.D.Cal., May 26, 2016, No. 1:15-CV-01611-JLT) 2016 WL 3019119 . " 'Although not binding precedent on our court, we may consider relevant, unpublished federal district court opinions as persuasive.' " ( Walker v…
discussed
Cited "see"
Organic Consumers Ass'n v. Sanderson Farms, Inc.
(2×)
See In re Farm Raised Salmon Cases , 42 Cal.4th 1077 , 1088, 72 Cal.Rptr.3d 112 , 175 P.3d 1170 (2008).
examined
Cited "see"
Kanfer v. Pharmacare US, Inc.
(4×)
See In re Farm Raised Salmon Cases, 42 Cal.4th 1077, 1089-96 , 72 Cal.Rptr.3d 112 , 175 P.3d 1170 (2008).
examined
Cited "see"
Sandoval v. PharmaCare US, Inc.
(4×)
See In re Farm Raised Salmon Cases, 42 Cal.4th 1077, 1089-96 , 72 Cal.Rptr.3d 112 , 175 P.3d 1170 (2008).
discussed
Cited "see"
Sciortino v. Pepsico, Inc.
(2×)
See In re Farm Raised Salmon Cases, 42 Cal.4th at 1086 , 72 Cal.Rptr.3d 112 , 175 P.3d 1170 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Aguirre v. Amscan Holdings, Inc.
(2×)
(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.1115; see Farm Raised Salmon Cases (2008) 42 Cal.4th 1077, 1096, fn. 18 [ 72 Cal.Rptr.3d 112 , 175 P.3d 1170 ].) Rule 8.1115 of the California Rules of Court prohibits the citation of unpublished opinions of California state courts, with certain limited exceptions.
discussed
Cited "see"
Clancy v. Bromley Tea Co.
(2×)
See In re Farm Raised Salmon Cases, 42 Cal.4th 1077, 1090 , 72 Cal. Rptr.3d 112 , 175 P.3d 1170 (2008), cert. denied, Albertson’s, Inc. v. Kanter, 555 U.S. 1097 , 129 S.Ct. 896 , 173 L.Ed.2d 106 (2009) (“Congress clearly stated its intent to allow states to establish their own identical laws____”).
discussed
Cited "see"
Pom Wonderful LLC v. Ocean Spray Cranberries, Inc.
(2×)
See Farm Raised Salmon Cases, 42 Cal.4th at 1094 , 72 Cal.Rptr.3d 112 , 175 P.3d 1170 (“Congress intended to allow states to establish their own requirements so long as they are identical to those contained in section 343[], which California has done in the form of the Sherman Law.”).
discussed
Cited "see"
Lockwood v. Conagra Foods, Inc.
(2×)
See In re Farm Raised Salmon Cases, 42 Cal.4th 1077, 1091 , 72 Cal.Rptr.3d 112 , 175 P.3d 1170 (2008) (holding that with section 6(c)(1) “Congress made clear that the preemptive scope of section 343-1 was to sweep no further than the plain language of the statute itself.”).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Shawn M. Smith v. Hi-Tech Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
See also Farm Raised Salmon Cases, 42 Cal. 4th 1077, 1091 (II) (A) ( 175 P3d 1170 ) (2008).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Solus Indus. Innovations, LLC v. Superior Court of Orange Cnty.
(2×)
Congress may expressly preempt state law through an explicit preemption clause, or courts may imply preemption under the field, conflict, or obstacle preemption doctrines." ( Quesada, supra , 62 Cal.4th at p. 308 , 195 Cal.Rptr.3d 505 , 361 P.3d 868 .) Implied preemption, for its part, may be found "(i) when it is clear that Congress intended, by comprehensive legislation, to occupy the entire field of regulation, leaving no room for the states to supplement federal law [citation]; (ii) when compliance with both federal and state regulations is an impossibility [citation]; or (iii) when state …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Viggiano v. Hansen Natural Corp.
(2×)
See Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, 518 U.S. 470, 485 , 116 S.Ct. 2240 , 135 L.Ed.2d 700 (1996) (“In all preemption cases, and particularly in those in which Congress has ‘legislated ... in a field which the States have traditionally occupied,’ we ‘start with the assumption that the historic police powers of the States were not to be superseded by the Federal Act unless that was the clear and manifest purpose of Congress’ ”); see also Bates v. Dow Agrosciences, LLC, 544 U.S. 431, 449 , 125 S.Ct. 1788 , 161 L.Ed.2d 687 (2005) (“[B]ecause the States are independent sovereigns in our feder…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Brazil v. Dole Food Co.
Based on this comment, the California Supreme Court opined that “allowing] states to enforce the federal requirements in federal court, but not discussing who would be allowed to enforce the identical state requirements ... suggests] that Congress did not intend to alter the status quo, i.e., states may choose to permit their residents to file unfair competition or other claims based on the violation of state laws.” Id.; see also id. (noting that “Congressional silence on this point is all the more strange in light of Congress’s presumed awareness that virtually every state in the nati…
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
Paduano v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc.
(4×)
Paduano's Advertising Claims Seek to Impose Duties Relating to Fuel Economy Standards and Would Also Impose Requirements upon Honda to Advertise Mileage Estimates Different from EPCA Requirements "When the issues regarding federal preemption involve undisputed facts, it is a question of law whether a federal statute or regulation preempts a state law claim and, on appeal, we independently review a trial court's determination on that issue of preemption." ( Smith v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 1463, 1476 [ 38 Cal.Rptr.3d 653 ] ( Smith ); see also In re Farm Raised Salmon Cases…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
REID (Brian)
v.
GOOGLE, INC.
v.
GOOGLE, INC.
S158965.
California Supreme Court.
Jan 30, 2008.
George.
Published
Petition for review granted.
GEORGE, C.J., was absent and did not participate.
BAXTER, A.C.J., KENNARD, WERDEGAR, CHIN, MORENO, and CORRIGAN, JJ., concur.