38 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1981–2024 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Indiana 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 |
|---|---|---|
Kuehne v. United Parcel Service, Inc.green2 sentences2012Kuehne v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 868 N.E.2d 870, 873 (Ind.Ct.App.2007). “ ‘[A] cardinal rule *68 of preemption analysis is the starting presumption that Congress d[id] not intend to supplant state law.’ ” Id. (quoting N.Y. 2012Kuehne v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 868 N.E.2d 870, 873 (Ind.Ct.App.2007). “ ‘[A] cardinal rule *68 of preemption analysis is the starting presumption that Congress d[id] not intend to supplant state law.’ ” Id. (quoting N.Y. | 4 | 4 |
Community Action Program of Evansville v. Veeckgreen2 sentences2024“The preemption doctrine invalidates those state laws that interfere with or are contrary to federal law.” Id. (citing Cmty. Action Program of Evansville v. Veeck, 756 N.E.2d 1079, 1084 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001). “[S]tate law is […] preempted to the extent it actually conflicts with federal law, that is, when it is impossible to comply with both state and federal law, or where the state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment of the Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-GU-2433 | July 17, 2024 Page 11 of 15 full purposes and objectives of Congress[.]” Silkwood v. Kerr-McGee Corp., 464 U 2002Community Action Program of Evansville v. Veeck, 756 N.E.2d 1079, 1084 (Ind.Ct.App.2001). | 2 | 2 |
Friberg v. Kansas City Southern Railway Co.green2 sentences2018Here the preemption provision plainly does not limit preemption to economic regulations. 49 U.S.C. § 10501 (b) ; see Friberg , 267 F.3d at 444 (noting "the all-encompassing language of the ICCTA's preemption clause"). 2018Here the preemption provision plainly does not limit preemption to economic regulations. 49 U.S.C. § 10501 (b); see Friberg, 267 F.3d at 444 (noting “the all-encompassing language of the ICCTA’s preemption clause”). | 2 | 2 |
Heath Ex Rel. Estate of Heath v. General Motors Corp.green2 sentences1994Most courts, however, including the Southern District of Indiana, “have found passive restraint claims not expressly preempted, because the preemption clause does not explicitly mention common law, and because the savings clause, when considered in connection with the preemption clause, makes ambiguous Congress’s intent with respect to the preemption of state common law claims.” See Heath, 756 F.Supp. at 1147 (Citations omitted.). 1994Most courts, however, including the Southern District of Indiana, "have found passive restraint claims not expressly preempted, because the preemption clause does not explicitly mention common law, and because the savings clause, when considered in connection with the preemption clause, makes ambiguous Congress's intent with respect to the preemption of state common law claims." See Heath, 756 F. Supp. at 1147 (Citations omitted.). | 2 | 2 |
Morales v. Trans World Airlines, Inc.green2 sentences2004To prevent states from "undo[ing] federal deregulation with regulation of their own," Congress enacted the ADA's preemption clause, which preempts state laws "relating to rates, routes, or service of any air carrier[.]" Charas v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 160 F.3d 1259, 1262-68 (9th Cir.1998). _The United States Supreme Court has twice addressed the scope of Section 1305(a)(1), first in Morales v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 504 U.S. 374 , 112 S.Ct. 2031 , 119 L.Ed.2d 157 (1992), and then in American Airlines, Inc. v. Wolens, 513 U.S. 219 , 115 S.Ct. 817 , 130 L.Ed.2d 715 (1995). 2004To prevent states from "undo[ing] federal deregulation with regulation of their own," Congress enacted the ADA's preemption clause, which preempts state laws "relating to rates, routes, or service of any air carrier[.]" Charas v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 160 F.3d 1259, 1262-68 (9th Cir.1998). _The United States Supreme Court has twice addressed the scope of Section 1305(a)(1), first in Morales v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 504 U.S. 374 , 112 S.Ct. 2031 , 119 L.Ed.2d 157 (1992), and then in American Airlines, Inc. v. Wolens, 513 U.S. 219 , 115 S.Ct. 817 , 130 L.Ed.2d 715 (1995). | 1 | 2 |
Silkwood v. Kerr-McGee Corp.green1 sentence2024“The preemption doctrine invalidates those state laws that interfere with or are contrary to federal law.” Id. (citing Cmty. Action Program of Evansville v. Veeck, 756 N.E.2d 1079, 1084 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001). “[S]tate law is […] preempted to the extent it actually conflicts with federal law, that is, when it is impossible to comply with both state and federal law, or where the state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment of the Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-GU-2433 | July 17, 2024 Page 11 of 15 full purposes and objectives of Congress[.]” Silkwood v. Kerr-McGee Corp., 464 U | 1 | 1 |
Quesada v. Herb Thyme Farms, Inc.green1 sentence2019It is express “when Congress positively enacts a preemption clause displacing state law; it is implied when courts infer a congressional intent to displace state law under one of three doctrines of ‘implied preemption’—namely, ‘field, conflict, or obstacle preemption.’” Roberts v. United Healthcare Servs., Inc., 206 Cal. Rptr. 3d 158, 164 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016) (quoting Quesada v. Herb Thyme Farms, Inc., 361 P.3d 868, 512 (Cal. 2015)). | 1 | 1 |
Roberts v. United Healthcare Services, Inc.green1 sentence2019It is express “when Congress positively enacts a preemption clause displacing state law; it is implied when courts infer a congressional intent to displace state law under one of three doctrines of ‘implied preemption’—namely, ‘field, conflict, or obstacle preemption.’” Roberts v. United Healthcare Servs., Inc., 206 Cal. Rptr. 3d 158, 164 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016) (quoting Quesada v. Herb Thyme Farms, Inc., 361 P.3d 868, 512 (Cal. 2015)). | 1 | 1 |
Todd v. Franklin Collection Service, Inc.green1 sentence2018While it is true that not all state-law claims based on credit-reporting malfeasance are barred, “FCRA explicitly preempts state-law claims alleging violations of the federal act.” Todd v. Franklin Collection Serv., Inc., 694 F.3d 849, 852 (7th Cir. 2012) (citing 15 U.S.C. § 1681t(b)(1)(F); Purcell v. Bank of Am., 659 F.3d 622 , 623–25 (7th Cir. 2011)). | 1 | 1 |
cluster 757686green1 sentence2017Palm Beach, 266 F.3d 1324, 1331 (11th Cir. 2001); cf. City of Auburn v. U.S. Gov’t, 154 F.3d 1025, 1030 (9th Cir. 1998) (seeming to apply a broader preemption rule). | 1 | 1 |
Florida East Coast Railway Company v. City Of West Palm Beachgreen1 sentence2017Palm Beach, 266 F.3d 1324, 1331 (11th Cir. 2001); cf. City of Auburn v. U.S. Gov’t, 154 F.3d 1025, 1030 (9th Cir. 1998) (seeming to apply a broader preemption rule). | 1 | 1 |
Beck's Superior Hybrids, Inc. v. Monsanto Co. & Monsanto Technology LLCgreen2 sentences2016In re Beck’s Superior Hybrids, Inc., 940 N.E.2d 352, 356 (Ind.Ct.App.2011). 2016Id. 49 U.S.C. § 14705 (a) provides: “A carrier providing transportation or service subject to jurisdiction under chapter 135 must begin a civil action to recover charges for transportation or service provided by the carrier within 18 months after the claim accrues.” The best evidence of preemptive intent is an express preemption clause. | 1 | 1 |
Grimes v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co.green1 sentence2010Co., 116 F.Supp.2d 995, 1000 (N.D.Ind.2000). | 1 | 1 |
Roland v. General Motors Corp.green2 sentences2009Roland v. General Motors Corp., 881 N.E.2d 722, 725 (Ind.Ct.App.2008), trans. denied. 2009Roland v. General Motors Corp., 881 N.E.2d 722, 725 (Ind.Ct.App.2008), trans. denied. | 1 | 1 |
| Hodges v. Delta Airlines, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| cluster 759280green | 1 | 1 |
| Bill Gray Enterprises, Incorporated Employee Health And Welfare Plan v. Ronald L. Gourleygreen | 1 | 1 |
| HCA Health Services of Indiana, Inc. v. Gregorygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Reed v. Drummondgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Hitchcock v. Floridagreen | 1 | 1 |
| Antares Aircraft L. P. v. Federal Republic of Nigeriagreen | 1 | 1 |
| Thompson v. Peoples Liberty Bankgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Virtual Maintenance, Inc. v. Prime Computer, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Gentry v. UNITED SLATE, TILE & CONST. ROOFERS, ETC.green | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Bond v. United States
green
2 sentences2017Bond v. United States, — U.S. —, 134 S.Ct. 2077, 2088 , 189 L.Ed.2d 1 (2014). 2017Bond v. United States, — U.S. —, 134 S.Ct. 2077, 2088 , 189 L.Ed.2d 1 (2014). | 3 | 2017–2017 |
Geier v. American Honda Motor Co.
green
2 sentences2011Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861, 870 , 120 S.Ct. 1913 , 146 L.Ed.2d 914 (2000)). 2011Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861, 870 , 120 S.Ct. 1913 , 146 L.Ed.2d 914 (2000)). | 2 | 2009–2011 |
American Airlines, Inc. v. Wolens
green
2 sentences2007The Deerskin court observed that the preemption clause under the ADA as discussed in American Airlines, Inc. v. Wolens, 513 U.S. 219, 232-33 , 115 S.Ct. 817 , 130 L.Ed.2d 715 (1995), stops States from imposing their own substantive standards with respect to rates, routes, or services, but not from affording relief to a party who claims and proves that an airline dishonored a term the airline itself stipulated. 2007The Deerskin court observed that the preemption clause under the ADA as discussed in American Airlines, Inc. v. Wolens, 513 U.S. 219, 232-33 , 115 S.Ct. 817 , 130 L.Ed.2d 715 (1995), stops States from imposing their own substantive standards with respect to rates, routes, or services, but not from affording relief to a party who claims and proves that an airline dishonored a term the airline itself stipulated. | 2 | 2004–2007 |
California v. ARC America Corp.
green
2 sentences1996California v. ARC America Corp., 490 U.S. 93, 101 , 109 S.Ct. 1661, 1665 , 104 L.Ed.2d 86 (1989). 1996California v. ARC America Corp., 490 U.S. 93, 101 , 109 S.Ct. 1661, 1665 , 104 L.Ed.2d 86 (1989). | 2 | 1996–1996 |
Bondex International v. Ott
green
1 sentence2024“The preemption doctrine invalidates those state laws that interfere with or are contrary to federal law.” Id. (citing Cmty. Action Program of Evansville v. Veeck, 756 N.E.2d 1079, 1084 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001). “[S]tate law is […] preempted to the extent it actually conflicts with federal law, that is, when it is impossible to comply with both state and federal law, or where the state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment of the Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-GU-2433 | July 17, 2024 Page 11 of 15 full purposes and objectives of Congress[.]” Silkwood v. Kerr-McGee Corp., 464 U | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Gobeille v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.
green
1 sentence2020Id. at 943 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Purcell v. Bank of America
green
1 sentence2018While it is true that not all state-law claims based on credit-reporting malfeasance are barred, “FCRA explicitly preempts state-law claims alleging violations of the federal act.” Todd v. Franklin Collection Serv., Inc., 694 F.3d 849, 852 (7th Cir. 2012) (citing 15 U.S.C. § 1681t(b)(1)(F); Purcell v. Bank of Am., 659 F.3d 622 , 623–25 (7th Cir. 2011)). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc.
green
1 sentence2018Cipollone v. Liggett Grp., Inc., 505 U.S. 504, 516 (1992). [13] The FCRA’s preemption clause provides that “[n]o requirement or prohibition may be imposed under the laws of any State” with respect to several enumerated areas covered by the FCRA. 15 U.S.C. § 1681t(b). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Stone v. DAVIESS CTY. DIV. CHILD SERV.
green
1 sentence2017We reasoned that if our termination statute required that services be provided to all parents prior to the termination of parental rights, under the doctrine of preemption an ADA violation by DCS in fulfilling that statutory duty would provide grounds for attacking a termination pursuant to that statute. 656 N.E.2d at 830 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Cleverly Lockhart v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
green
2 sentences2016Id. [7] Because federal law is the supreme law of the land under the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, state laws that interfere with or are contrary to federal law are invalidated under the preemption doctrine. 2016Id. [7] Because federal law is the supreme law of the land under the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, state laws that interfere with or are contrary to federal law are invalidated under the preemption doctrine. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Wolicki-Gables v. Arrow International, Inc.
green
1 sentence2013Wolicki-Gables v. Arrow Intern., Inc., 634 F.3d 1296 (11th Cir.2011). | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr
green
2 sentences2013The preemption clause “does not prevent a State from providing a damages remedy for claims premised on a violation of FDA regulations; the state duties in such a case ‘parallel,’ rather than add to, federal requirements.” Id. (quoting Medtronic v. Lohr, 518 U.S. 470, 495 , 116 S.Ct. 2240 , 135 L.Ed.2d 700 (1996)). 2013The preemption clause “does not prevent a State from providing a damages remedy for claims premised on a violation of FDA regulations; the state duties in such a case ‘parallel,’ rather than add to, federal requirements.” Id. (quoting Medtronic v. Lohr, 518 U.S. 470, 495 , 116 S.Ct. 2240 , 135 L.Ed.2d 700 (1996)). | 1 | 2013–2013 |
McGOOKIN v. Guidant Corp.
green
1 sentence2013In McGookin v. Guidant Corp., 942 N.E.2d 831 (Ind.Ct.App.2011), a child died after receiving a pacemaker. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Chaisson v. Chaisson
green
1 sentence2012“The text of section 8709 reveals that it is only concerned with conflicts between state regulation of group life insurance programs and the express contractual provisions contained in FEGLIA policies.” Fagan, 179 S.W.3d at 43 . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Kidd v. Pritzel
green
2 sentences2012On the other hand, the preemption clause “is not concerned with state law claims brought once the proceeds of a policy are paid out.” Kidd, 821 S.W.2d at 573 . 2012Ultimately, the preemption clause’s purpose is to “alleviate the difficulty of interpreting state laws and regulations concerning group life insurance.” Id. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Peter v. Ford Motor Co.
green
1 sentence2011And as for Cook , we note that while the Safety Act has a preemption clause, it also has an explicit savings clause that “preserves those actions that seek to establish a greater safety than the minimum safety achieved by a federal regulation intended to provide a floor.’ ” Cook, 913 N.E.2d at 320 (quoting Geier v. Am. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| Metropolitan Life Insurance v. Taylor green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg green | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| Ballas v. Tedesco green | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| Moreau v. San Diego Transit Corp. green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| Hines v. Davidowitz green | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| Freightliner Corp. v. Myrick green | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| Gentry v. United Slate, Tile and Construction Roofers neutral | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| Amalgamated Ass'n of Street, Electric Railway & Motor Coach Employees of America, Division 998 v. Wisconsin Employment Relations Board green | 1 | 1988–1988 |
| Birbeck v. Southern New England Production Credit Ass'n green | 1 | 1987–1987 |
| Bishop v. Board of Zoning Appeals of New Haven green | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.