5 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 1987–2024 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Ohio courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Geier v. American Honda Motor Co.green2 sentences2024Id. at 881. 2024Id. {¶ 48} Finally, the United States Supreme Court has found obstacle preemption when a state law would impede the vindication of a federal right. | 1 | 2 |
Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Lueckgreen2 sentences1989The last factor relied on by the trial court was that the action was preempted by Section 301(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act (Section 185[a], Title 29, U.S.Code), in that: “ ‘Suits for violation of contracts between an employer and a labor organization representing employees in an industry affecting commerce as defined in this chapter, or between any such labor organizations, may be brought in any district court of the United States having jurisdiction of the parties, without respect to the amount in controversy or without regard to the citizenship of the parties.’ “Federal case law 1989The last factor relied on by the trial court was that the action was preempted by Section 301(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act (Section 185[a], Title 29, U.S.Code), in that: “ ‘Suits for violation of contracts between an employer and a labor organization representing employees in an industry affecting commerce as defined in this chapter, or between any such labor organizations, may be brought in any district court of the United States having jurisdiction of the parties, without respect to the amount in controversy or without regard to the citizenship of the parties.’ “Federal case law | 1 | 2 |
Frances S. Hodges v. Delta Airlines, Inc.green1 sentence2014In Hodges, the Fifth Circuit held that the ADA did not preempt a state tort claim against Delta Airlines for negligently allowing storage of a box in an overhead compartment because that storage was not an element “of the air carrier service bargain * * * such as ticketing, boarding procedures, provision of food and drink, and baggage handling, in addition to the transportation itself.” Id. at 336 , quoting Hodges v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 4 F.3d 350, 354 (5th Cir. 1993). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hodges v. Delta Airlines, Inc.
green
1 sentence2014In Hodges, the Fifth Circuit held that the ADA did not preempt a state tort claim against Delta Airlines for negligently allowing storage of a box in an overhead compartment because that storage was not an element “of the air carrier service bargain * * * such as ticketing, boarding procedures, provision of food and drink, and baggage handling, in addition to the transportation itself.” Id. at 336 , quoting Hodges v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 4 F.3d 350, 354 (5th Cir. 1993). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Welsh v. United Parcel Service, Inc.
neutral
2 sentences1989The last factor relied on by the trial court was that the action was preempted by Section 301(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act (Section 185[a], Title 29, U.S.Code), in that: “ ‘Suits for violation of contracts between an employer and a labor organization representing employees in an industry affecting commerce as defined in this chapter, or between any such labor organizations, may be brought in any district court of the United States having jurisdiction of the parties, without respect to the amount in controversy or without regard to the citizenship of the parties.’ “Federal case law 1989The last factor relied on by the trial court was that the action was preempted by Section 301(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act (Section 185[a], Title 29, U.S.Code), in that: “ ‘Suits for violation of contracts between an employer and a labor organization representing employees in an industry affecting commerce as defined in this chapter, or between any such labor organizations, may be brought in any district court of the United States having jurisdiction of the parties, without respect to the amount in controversy or without regard to the citizenship of the parties.’ “Federal case law | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Betty Moore v. General Motors Corporation
green
1 sentence1987Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Lueck (1985), 471 U.S. 202 ; Martin v. Associated Truck Lines, Inc. (C.A. 6, 1986), 801 F. 2d 246 ; Bell v. Gas Service Co. (C.A. 8, 1985), 778 F. 2d 512 ; Moore v. General Motors Corp. (C.A. 8, 1984), 739 F. 2d 311 . | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Eleanor M. Bell v. Gas Service Company
green
1 sentence1987Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Lueck (1985), 471 U.S. 202 ; Martin v. Associated Truck Lines, Inc. (C.A. 6, 1986), 801 F. 2d 246 ; Bell v. Gas Service Co. (C.A. 8, 1985), 778 F. 2d 512 ; Moore v. General Motors Corp. (C.A. 8, 1984), 739 F. 2d 311 . | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Martin v. Associated Truck Lines, Inc.
green
1 sentence1987Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Lueck (1985), 471 U.S. 202 ; Martin v. Associated Truck Lines, Inc. (C.A. 6, 1986), 801 F. 2d 246 ; Bell v. Gas Service Co. (C.A. 8, 1985), 778 F. 2d 512 ; Moore v. General Motors Corp. (C.A. 8, 1984), 739 F. 2d 311 . | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.