green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
5.9 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 1996 ·
…the supreme court recently explained that implied preemption is sometimes appropriate despite the existence of preemption provision
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1996 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1996
2011
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Hernandez-Gomez v. Leonardo
(2×)
the supreme court recently explained that implied preemption is sometimes appropriate despite the existence of preemption provision
discussed
Cited "see"
Ngo v. Reno Hilton Resort Corp.
See Barbour v. Merrill, 48 F.3d 1270, 1277 (D.C.Cir.1995)(explaining that “evidence that suffices to establish an intentional violation of protected civil rights also may suffice to permit the jury to award punitive damages, provided the jury, in its ‘discretionary moral judgment,’ finds that the conduct merits a punitive award”)(citing Wade, 461 U.S. at 52 , 103 S.Ct. at 1637-38 ), cert. granted 516 U.S. 1086 , 116 S.Ct. 805 , 133 L.Ed.2d 752 and cert. dismissed 516 U.S. 1155 , 116 S.Ct. 1037 , 134 L.Ed.2d 113 (1996); Rowlett v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 832 F.2d 194, 205-06 (1st Cir.1987…
discussed
Cited "see"
Calvin Rhodes v. Guiberson Oil Tools
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 , 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2552 , 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986) 5 See, e.g., Barbour v. Merrill, 48 F.3d 1270, 1276 (D.C.Cir.1995), cert. granted in part, --- U.S. ----, 116 S.Ct. 805 , 133 L.Ed.2d 752 (1996); Seman v. Coplay Cement Co., 26 F.3d 428, 433 (3d Cir.1994); Gaworski v. ITT Commercial Fin.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Auciello Iron Works, Inc.
v.
National Labor Relations Board
v.
National Labor Relations Board
No. 95-668.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jan 19, 1996.
Published
Citer courts: Arizona Supreme Court (2)
C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari granted. Brief of petitioner is to be filed with the Clerk and served upon opposing counsel on or before 3 p.m., Friday, March 1, 1996. Brief of the Solicitor General is to be filed with the Clerk and served upon opposing counsel on or before 3 p.m., Friday, March 29, 1996. A reply brief, if any, is to be filed pursuant to this Court’s Rule 25.3. Rule 29.2 does not apply.