Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 West Virginia opinions name it 1 courts 1973–2014 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by West Virginia 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 |
|---|---|---|
International Paper Co. v. Ouellettegreen2 sentences2014See Int’l Paper Co. v. Ouellette, 479 U.S. 481, 494 , 107 S.Ct. 805 , 93 L.Ed.2d 883 (1987) (finding the CWA does not completely preempt all state common law claims). 2014See Int’l Paper Co. v. Ouellette, 479 U.S. 481, 494 , 107 S.Ct. 805 , 93 L.Ed.2d 883 (1987) (finding the CWA does not completely preempt all state common law claims). | 1 | 1 |
FMC Corp. v. Hollidaygreen2 sentences2009“To discern Congress’ intent we examine the explicit statutory language and the structure and purpose of the statute.” Ingersoll-Rand Co. v. McClendon, 498 U.S. 133, 138 , 111 S.Ct. 478 , 112 L.Ed.2d 474 (1990); see also FMC Corp. v. Holliday, 498 U.S. 52, 56-57 , 111 S.Ct. 403 , 112 L.Ed.2d 356 (1990). 2009“To discern Congress’ intent we examine the explicit statutory language and the structure and purpose of the statute.” Ingersoll-Rand Co. v. McClendon, 498 U.S. 133, 138 , 111 S.Ct. 478 , 112 L.Ed.2d 474 (1990); see also FMC Corp. v. Holliday, 498 U.S. 52, 56-57 , 111 S.Ct. 403 , 112 L.Ed.2d 356 (1990). | 1 | 1 |
Hines v. Davidowitzgreen2 sentences2009The task presented for a court when a federal preemption defense is raised “is to determine whether state regulation is consistent with the structure and purpose of the statute [or federal regulation] as a whole.” Gade v. National Solid Wastes Management Ass’n, 505 U.S. 88, 98 , 112 S.Ct. 2374 , 120 L.Ed.2d 73 (1992); accord Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52, 67, 61 S.Ct. 399 , 85 L.Ed. 581 (1941). 2009The task presented for a court when a federal preemption defense is raised “is to determine whether state regulation is consistent with the structure and purpose of the statute [or federal regulation] as a whole.” Gade v. National Solid Wastes Management Ass’n, 505 U.S. 88, 98 , 112 S.Ct. 2374 , 120 L.Ed.2d 73 (1992); accord Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52, 67, 61 S.Ct. 399 , 85 L.Ed. 581 (1941). | 1 | 1 |
Bullock v. Bullockgreen1 sentence1987In McCarty v. McCarty, *36 453 U.S. 210 , 101 S.Ct. 2728 , 69 L.Ed.2d 589 (1981), the United States Supreme Court held that the federal military retirement statutes precluded states from dividing military retirement pay pursuant to state community property laws under the doctrine of federal preemption. 2 In the wake of McCarty, Congress responded and enacted the Federal Uniformed Services Former Spouses’ Protection Act (FUSFSPA), which is codified in 10 U.S.C. § 1408 (1984), and became effective on February 1, 1983. 3 The pertinent section of the legislation, 10 U.S.C. § 1408 (c)(1) (1984), 4 | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in West Virginia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Erie Railroad v. New York
green
2 sentences1973Erie Railroad Company v. People of the State of New York, 233 U.S. 671 , 34 S.Ct. 756 , 58 L.Ed. 1149 ; Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. State of Washington ex rel. 1973Erie Railroad Company v. People of the State of New York, 233 U.S. 671 ; Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. State of Washington ex rel. | 2 | 1973–1973 |
Gade v. National Solid Wastes Management Assn.
green
2 sentences2009The task presented for a court when a federal preemption defense is raised “is to determine whether state regulation is consistent with the structure and purpose of the statute [or federal regulation] as a whole.” Gade v. National Solid Wastes Management Ass’n, 505 U.S. 88, 98 , 112 S.Ct. 2374 , 120 L.Ed.2d 73 (1992); accord Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52, 67, 61 S.Ct. 399 , 85 L.Ed. 581 (1941). 2009The task presented for a court when a federal preemption defense is raised “is to determine whether state regulation is consistent with the structure and purpose of the statute [or federal regulation] as a whole.” Gade v. National Solid Wastes Management Ass’n, 505 U.S. 88, 98 , 112 S.Ct. 2374 , 120 L.Ed.2d 73 (1992); accord Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52, 67, 61 S.Ct. 399 , 85 L.Ed. 581 (1941). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Ingersoll-Rand Co. v. McClendon
green
2 sentences2009“To discern Congress’ intent we examine the explicit statutory language and the structure and purpose of the statute.” Ingersoll-Rand Co. v. McClendon, 498 U.S. 133, 138 , 111 S.Ct. 478 , 112 L.Ed.2d 474 (1990); see also FMC Corp. v. Holliday, 498 U.S. 52, 56-57 , 111 S.Ct. 403 , 112 L.Ed.2d 356 (1990). 2009“To discern Congress’ intent we examine the explicit statutory language and the structure and purpose of the statute.” Ingersoll-Rand Co. v. McClendon, 498 U.S. 133, 138 , 111 S.Ct. 478 , 112 L.Ed.2d 474 (1990); see also FMC Corp. v. Holliday, 498 U.S. 52, 56-57 , 111 S.Ct. 403 , 112 L.Ed.2d 356 (1990). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
McCarty v. McCarty
red
2 sentences1987In McCarty v. McCarty, *36 453 U.S. 210 , 101 S.Ct. 2728 , 69 L.Ed.2d 589 (1981), the United States Supreme Court held that the federal military retirement statutes precluded states from dividing military retirement pay pursuant to state community property laws under the doctrine of federal preemption. 2 In the wake of McCarty, Congress responded and enacted the Federal Uniformed Services Former Spouses’ Protection Act (FUSFSPA), which is codified in 10 U.S.C. § 1408 (1984), and became effective on February 1, 1983. 3 The pertinent section of the legislation, 10 U.S.C. § 1408 (c)(1) (1984), 4 1987In McCarty v. McCarty, *36 453 U.S. 210 , 101 S.Ct. 2728 , 69 L.Ed.2d 589 (1981), the United States Supreme Court held that the federal military retirement statutes precluded states from dividing military retirement pay pursuant to state community property laws under the doctrine of federal preemption. 2 In the wake of McCarty, Congress responded and enacted the Federal Uniformed Services Former Spouses’ Protection Act (FUSFSPA), which is codified in 10 U.S.C. § 1408 (1984), and became effective on February 1, 1983. 3 The pertinent section of the legislation, 10 U.S.C. § 1408 (c)(1) (1984), 4 | 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.