27 New Jersey opinions name it 2 courts 1963–2026 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New Jersey 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 |
|---|---|---|
Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paulgreen2 sentences2026See Fla. Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul, 373 U.S. 132, 141 (1963) (quotation omitted) (upholding a state agricultural regulation against Supremacy Clause challenge). 2026See Fla. Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul, 373 U.S. 132, 141 (1963) (quotation omitted) (upholding a state agricultural regulation against Supremacy Clause challenge). | 2 | 3 |
Schmoll v. Creecygreen2 sentences1987See id. (“The need for deterrence can be met by a companion provision imposing monetary penalties.”) Y Defendants also assert that the Reporting Act violates the supremacy clause because it frustrates the goals of the National Housing Act, 12 U.S.C.A. §§ 1701 to 1750g. 1987See id. ("The need for deterrence can be met by a companion provision imposing monetary penalties.") V Defendants also assert that the Reporting Act violates the supremacy clause because it frustrates the goals of the National Housing Act, 12 U.S.C.A. §§ 1701 to 1750g. | 2 | 2 |
Painter's Local Union No. 567 of the Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators & Paperhangers v. Tom Joyce Floors, Inc.green2 sentences2003This doctrine "rests upon the supremacy clause of the federal constitution, and deprives a state of jurisdiction over matters embraced by a congressional act regardless of whether the state law coincides with, is complementary to, or opposed to the federal congressional expression." Painters Local Union No. 567 of the Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators and Paperhangers of America v. Tom Joyce Floors, Inc., 81 Nev. 1 , 398 P. 2d 245, 246 (1965). 2003This doctrine "rests upon the supremacy clause of the federal constitution, and deprives a state of jurisdiction over matters embraced by a congressional act regardless of whether the state law coincides with, is complementary to, or opposed to the federal congressional expression." Painters Local Union No. 567 of the Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators and Paperhangers of America v. Tom Joyce Floors, Inc., 81 Nev. 1 , 398 P. 2d 245, 246 (1965). | 1 | 1 |
Wheeler v. Caterpillar Tractor Co.green2 sentences1993Wheeler, supra, 92 Ill.Dec. at 566 , 485 N.E.2d at 377 (finding retaliatory discharge cause of action when plaintiff requested transfer and was subsequently fired for refusal to operate X-ray machine that allegedly violated regulations of Nuclear Regulatory Commission pursuant to Atomic Energy Act). 1993Wheeler, supra, 92 Ill.Dec. at 566 , 485 N.E.2d at 377 (finding retaliatory discharge cause of action when plaintiff requested transfer and was subsequently fired for refusal to operate X-ray machine that allegedly violated regulations of Nuclear Regulatory Commission pursuant to Atomic Energy Act). | 1 | 1 |
Tafflin v. Levittgreen2 sentences1991Tafflin v. Levitt, 493 U.S. 455 , ___, 110 S.Ct. 792, 795 , 107 L.Ed. 2d 887, 894 (1990). 1991Tafflin v. Levitt, 493 U.S. 455 , ___, 110 S.Ct. 792, 795 , 107 L.Ed. 2d 887, 894 (1990). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Simongreen2 sentences1990See State v. Grunow, 102 N.J. 133, 148 , 506 A.2d 708 (1986) (“ ‘[The] judicial obligation, to assure the jury’s impartial deliberations upon the guilt of a criminal defendant based solely upon the evidence in accordance with proper and adequate instructions, is at the core of the guarantee of a fair trial.’ ” (quoting State v. Simon, 79 N.J. 191, 206 , 398 A.2d 861 (1979)). 1990See State v. Grunow, 102 N.J. 133, 148 , 506 A.2d 708 (1986) (“ ‘[The] judicial obligation, to assure the jury’s impartial deliberations upon the guilt of a criminal defendant based solely upon the evidence in accordance with proper and adequate instructions, is at the core of the guarantee of a fair trial.’ ” (quoting State v. Simon, 79 N.J. 191, 206 , 398 A.2d 861 (1979)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Grunowgreen2 sentences1990See State v. Grunow, 102 N.J. 133, 148 , 506 A.2d 708 (1986) (“ ‘[The] judicial obligation, to assure the jury’s impartial deliberations upon the guilt of a criminal defendant based solely upon the evidence in accordance with proper and adequate instructions, is at the core of the guarantee of a fair trial.’ ” (quoting State v. Simon, 79 N.J. 191, 206 , 398 A.2d 861 (1979)). 1990See State v. Grunow, 102 N.J. 133, 148 , 506 A.2d 708 (1986) (“ ‘[The] judicial obligation, to assure the jury’s impartial deliberations upon the guilt of a criminal defendant based solely upon the evidence in accordance with proper and adequate instructions, is at the core of the guarantee of a fair trial.’ ” (quoting State v. Simon, 79 N.J. 191, 206 , 398 A.2d 861 (1979)). | 1 | 1 |
McGlynn v. New Jersey Public Broadcasting Authoritygreen2 sentences1987Public Broadcast Auth., 88 N.J. 112, 137 (1981).] Since defendants have not alleged that Congress has prohibited the states from regulating in this area, we must consider only whether the Reporting Act “actually conflicts with a valid federal statute.” The test for determining whether actual conflict exists is “whether, under the circumstances of [a] particular case, [the state’s] law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.” Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52, 67 , 61 S.Ct. 399, 404 , 85 L.Ed. 581 (1941), quoted in Jones v. Rath 1987Public Broadcast Auth., 88 N.J. 112, 137 (1981).] Since defendants have not alleged that Congress has prohibited the states from regulating in this area, we must consider only *293 whether the Reporting Act "actually conflicts with a valid federal statute." The test for determining whether actual conflict exists is "whether, under the circumstances of [a] particular case, [the state's] law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress." Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52, 67 , 61 S.Ct. 399, 404 , 85 L.Ed. 581 (1941), quoted in Jones v. | 1 | 1 |
Edwards v. Mayor, Etc. of Borough of Moonachiegreen1 sentence1984See infra at 539-541 & notes 8, 9. 7 This clause of the United States Constitution, more commonly referred to as the supremacy clause, provides: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof, and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land, and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. 8 In this connection we are reminded that "while the views of subsequent Congresses cannot over | 1 | 1 |
Wasservogel v. Meyerowitzgreen2 sentences1984See Wasservogel v. Meyerowitz, 300 N.Y. 125, 133-134 , 89 N.E. 2d 712, 716-717 (Ct.App. 1949). 1984See Wasservogel v. Meyerowitz, 300 N.Y. 125, 133-134 , 89 N.E. 2d 712, 716-717 (Ct.App. 1949). | 1 | 1 |
Seatrain Shipbuilding Corp. v. Shell Oil Co.green2 sentences1984See infra at 539-541 & notes 8, 9. 7 This clause of the United States Constitution, more commonly referred to as the supremacy clause, provides: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof, and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land, and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. 8 In this connection we are reminded that "while the views of subsequent Congresses cannot over 1984See infra at 539-541 & notes 8, 9. 7 This clause of the United States Constitution, more commonly referred to as the supremacy clause, provides: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof, and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land, and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. 8 In this connection we are reminded that "while the views of subsequent Congresses cannot over | 1 | 1 |
Bell v. New Jerseygreen2 sentences1984See infra at 539-541 & notes 8, 9. 7 This clause of the United States Constitution, more commonly referred to as the supremacy clause, provides: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof, and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land, and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. 8 In this connection we are reminded that "while the views of subsequent Congresses cannot over 1984See infra at 539-541 & notes 8, 9. 7 This clause of the United States Constitution, more commonly referred to as the supremacy clause, provides: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof, and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land, and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. 8 In this connection we are reminded that "while the views of subsequent Congresses cannot over | 1 | 1 |
| Joseph Fidtler v. A. T. Rundle, Supt. State Correctional Inst. At Graterford Pa. And Edward T. Hendricksgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Butz v. Economougreen | 1 | 1 |
| Carl Qualls, Administrator of the Estate of Billy Don Trull and Manual Daniel Bunch v. Jack K. Parrishgreen | 1 | 1 |
| De Canas v. Bicared | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Belmontgreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Burnisongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Garden State Farms, Inc. v. Mayor Louis Bay, IIgreen1 sentence1984But cf. Garden State Farms, Inc. v. Bay, 77 N.J. 439, 453 (1978) ("We believe that '* * * caution must be exercised in using the action of the *540 legislature on proposed amendments as an interpretative aid’ in discerning legislative intent. 2A Sutherland, Statutory Construction, § 48.18 at 225 (Sands ed.1973).’’); Schmoll v. Creecy, 54 N.J. 194, 203 (1969) ("Indeed, the question as to the intent of [one] Legislature * * * is a judicial question as to which neither the action nor inaction of a subsequent Legislature can be disposi-tive.”). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hines v. Davidowitz
green
2 sentences1999The court rejected the argument that the state statute conflicted with the federal statute by “mandat[ing] a landlord’s participation in a voluntary Federal program and, therefore, violated] the supremacy clause.” Ibid. 1977The most recent test of whether a Supremacy Clause violation has occurred has been stated by the United States Supreme Court in Jones v. The Rath Packing Co., 430 U.S. 519 , 97 S.Ct. 1305 , 51 L.Ed. 2d 604 (1977) as follows: Our task is "to determine whether under the circumstances of this particular case [the state's] law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress." Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52, 67 , 61 S.Ct. 399, 404 , 85 L.Ed. 581 (1940). | 3 | 1977–1999 |
Carleson v. Remillard
green
2 sentences1984Carleson v. Remillard, 406 U.S. 598, 600-603 , 92 S.Ct. 1932, 1934-1935 , 32 L.Ed. 2d 352 (1972). 1984Carleson v. Remillard, 406 U.S. 598, 600-603 , 92 S.Ct. 1932, 1934-1935 , 32 L.Ed. 2d 352 (1972). | 3 | 1984–1984 |
Jones v. Rath Packing Co.
green
2 sentences1977The most recent test of whether a Supremacy Clause violation has occurred has been stated by the United States Supreme Court in Jones v. The Rath Packing Co., 430 U.S. 519 , 97 S.Ct. 1305 , 51 L.Ed. 2d 604 (1977) as follows: Our task is "to determine whether under the circumstances of this particular case [the state's] law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress." Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52, 67 , 61 S.Ct. 399, 404 , 85 L.Ed. 581 (1940). 1977The most recent test of whether a Supremacy Clause violation has occurred has been stated by the United States Supreme Court in Jones v. The Rath Packing Co., 430 U.S. 519 , 97 S.Ct. 1305 , 51 L.Ed. 2d 604 (1977) as follows: Our task is "to determine whether under the circumstances of this particular case [the state's] law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress." Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52, 67 , 61 S.Ct. 399, 404 , 85 L.Ed. 581 (1940). | 2 | 1977–1987 |
Gangemi v. Berry
green
2 sentences2010Transit Rail Operations, Inc., 125 N.J. 455, 463 , 593 A. 2d 750 (1991) ("Under our federal system of government the States possess sovereignty concurrent with that of the federal government, subject only to the limitations imposed by the supremacy clause of the United States Constitution, article VI, clause 2." (citation omitted)); Gangemi v. Berry, 25 N.J. 1, 9 , 134 A. 2d 1 (1957) (stating that although "the legislative authority in the States consists of the full and complete power as it rests in, and may be exercised by, the sovereign power of any country," any state law or constitutional 2010Transit Rail Operations, Inc., 125 N.J. 455, 463 , 593 A. 2d 750 (1991) ("Under our federal system of government the States possess sovereignty concurrent with that of the federal government, subject only to the limitations imposed by the supremacy clause of the United States Constitution, article VI, clause 2." (citation omitted)); Gangemi v. Berry, 25 N.J. 1, 9 , 134 A. 2d 1 (1957) (stating that although "the legislative authority in the States consists of the full and complete power as it rests in, and may be exercised by, the sovereign power of any country," any state law or constitutional | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Maher v. New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, Inc.
green
2 sentences2010Transit Rail Operations, Inc., 125 N.J. 455, 463 , 593 A. 2d 750 (1991) ("Under our federal system of government the States possess sovereignty concurrent with that of the federal government, subject only to the limitations imposed by the supremacy clause of the United States Constitution, article VI, clause 2." (citation omitted)); Gangemi v. Berry, 25 N.J. 1, 9 , 134 A. 2d 1 (1957) (stating that although "the legislative authority in the States consists of the full and complete power as it rests in, and may be exercised by, the sovereign power of any country," any state law or constitutional 2010Transit Rail Operations, Inc., 125 N.J. 455, 463 , 593 A. 2d 750 (1991) ("Under our federal system of government the States possess sovereignty concurrent with that of the federal government, subject only to the limitations imposed by the supremacy clause of the United States Constitution, article VI, clause 2." (citation omitted)); Gangemi v. Berry, 25 N.J. 1, 9 , 134 A. 2d 1 (1957) (stating that although "the legislative authority in the States consists of the full and complete power as it rests in, and may be exercised by, the sovereign power of any country," any state law or constitutional | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Communications Workers v. Union Cty. Welfare Bd.
green
2 sentences2001A state regulation that conflicts with a federal standard is invalid under the supremacy clause."); Barrera v. Department of Insts. & Agencies, 150 N.J.Super. 41, 45 , 374 A. 2d 1219 (App.Div. 1977) (State participation in federally supported categorical assistance programs is voluntary, but a state choosing to participate must comply with the terms of the federal legislation and regulations promulgated thereunder); Communications Workers of Am., AFL-CIO v. Union County Welfare Bd., 126 N.J.Super. 517, 525 , 315 A. 2d 709 (App.Div.1974) (Regulation promulgated by the Department of Health, Educ 2001A state regulation that conflicts with a federal standard is invalid under the supremacy clause."); Barrera v. Department of Insts. & Agencies, 150 N.J.Super. 41, 45 , 374 A. 2d 1219 (App.Div. 1977) (State participation in federally supported categorical assistance programs is voluntary, but a state choosing to participate must comply with the terms of the federal legislation and regulations promulgated thereunder); Communications Workers of Am., AFL-CIO v. Union County Welfare Bd., 126 N.J.Super. 517, 525 , 315 A. 2d 709 (App.Div.1974) (Regulation promulgated by the Department of Health, Educ | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Barrera v. Dept. of Institutions and Agencies
green
2 sentences2001A state regulation that conflicts with a federal standard is invalid under the supremacy clause."); Barrera v. Department of Insts. & Agencies, 150 N.J.Super. 41, 45 , 374 A. 2d 1219 (App.Div. 1977) (State participation in federally supported categorical assistance programs is voluntary, but a state choosing to participate must comply with the terms of the federal legislation and regulations promulgated thereunder); Communications Workers of Am., AFL-CIO v. Union County Welfare Bd., 126 N.J.Super. 517, 525 , 315 A. 2d 709 (App.Div.1974) (Regulation promulgated by the Department of Health, Educ 2001A state regulation that conflicts with a federal standard is invalid under the supremacy clause."); Barrera v. Department of Insts. & Agencies, 150 N.J.Super. 41, 45 , 374 A. 2d 1219 (App.Div. 1977) (State participation in federally supported categorical assistance programs is voluntary, but a state choosing to participate must comply with the terms of the federal legislation and regulations promulgated thereunder); Communications Workers of Am., AFL-CIO v. Union County Welfare Bd., 126 N.J.Super. 517, 525 , 315 A. 2d 709 (App.Div.1974) (Regulation promulgated by the Department of Health, Educ | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Howlett Ex Rel. Howlett v. Rose
green
2 sentences2000VI cl. 2] According to the Supreme Court in Howlett By and Through Howlett v. Rose, 496 U.S. 356, 367-68 , 110 S.Ct. 2430 , 110 L.Ed.2d 332 (1990), the supremacy clause makes the Constitution and laws passed pursuant to it "the supreme Law of the Land,' and charges state courts with coordinate responsibility to enforce those laws according to their regular modes of procedure." A long line of cases buttresses the fundamental principle expressed in Howlett. 2000VI cl. 2] According to the Supreme Court in Howlett By and Through Howlett v. Rose, 496 U.S. 356, 367-68 , 110 S.Ct. 2430 , 110 L.Ed.2d 332 (1990), the supremacy clause makes the Constitution and laws passed pursuant to it "the supreme Law of the Land,' and charges state courts with coordinate responsibility to enforce those laws according to their regular modes of procedure." A long line of cases buttresses the fundamental principle expressed in Howlett. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Duquette v. Tahan
green
1 sentence1994VI, cl. 2. (as noted in Duquette v. Tahan, 252 N.J. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Budankov v. Amato
neutral
1 sentence1991Super. 284, 297 , 476 A. 2d 861 (App.Div. 1984), appeal dismissed, 101 N.J. 208 , 501 A. 2d 893 (1985) (holding "that the supremacy clause bars a New Jersey court from interfering with ... federal administrative proceedings."). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Dieso v. Middle-Sex County Utilities Authority
green
2 sentences1991We granted plaintiff's petition for certification, 122 N.J. 348 , 585 A. 2d 360 (1990), to determine whether her strict-liability cause of action based on failure to warn is preempted under the supremacy clause, U.S. Const. art. 1991We granted plaintiff's petition for certification, 122 N.J. 348 , 585 A. 2d 360 (1990), to determine whether her strict-liability cause of action based on failure to warn is preempted under the supremacy clause, U.S. Const. art. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
In Re the Commitment of W.J.
green
1 sentence1991Super. 284, 297 , 476 A. 2d 861 (App.Div. 1984), appeal dismissed, 101 N.J. 208 , 501 A. 2d 893 (1985) (holding "that the supremacy clause bars a New Jersey court from interfering with ... federal administrative proceedings."). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
First Jersey Securities, Inc. v. SEC
green
1 sentence1991Super. 284, 297 , 476 A. 2d 861 (App.Div. 1984), appeal dismissed, 101 N.J. 208 , 501 A. 2d 893 (1985) (holding "that the supremacy clause bars a New Jersey court from interfering with ... federal administrative proceedings."). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
In RE MARRIAGE OF ECKERT v. Eckert
green
2 sentences1990Id. 424 N.W. 2d at 761 . 1990Id. 424 N.W. 2d at 761 . | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Williams v. Horvath
green
2 sentences1988In Williams v. Horvath, supra, 16 Cal.3d at 841 , 129 Cal.Rptr. at 457-58 , 548 P.2d at 1129-30 , the California Supreme Court reasoned that the purposes underlying section 1983 may not be frustrated by state substantive limitations couched in procedural language and that the supremacy clause will not permit such abrogation of a federal right. 1988In Williams v. Horvath, supra, 16 Cal.3d at 841 , 129 Cal.Rptr. at 457-58 , 548 P.2d at 1129-30 , the California Supreme Court reasoned that the purposes underlying section 1983 may not be frustrated by state substantive limitations couched in procedural language and that the supremacy clause will not permit such abrogation of a federal right. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
First Family Mortg. Corp. of Florida v. Durham
green
2 sentences1987The court also rejected plaintiff’s argument that the Reporting Act violates the supremacy clause by undermining the policy of the National Housing Act: “The slight inconvenience of filing the notice [Activities Report] will not destroy the market for GNMA mortgages on homes in New Jersey and in other states having a similar requirement.” 1 Id. 1987The court also rejected plaintiff's argument that the Reporting Act violates the supremacy clause by undermining *281 the policy of the National Housing Act: "The slight inconvenience of filing the notice [Activities Report] will not destroy the market for GNMA mortgages on homes in New Jersey and in other states having a similar requirement." [1] Id. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Ray v. Atlantic Richfield Co.
green
2 sentences1987A state statute violates the supremacy clause (1) where “Congress has either explicitly or implicitly declared that the states are prohibited from regulating” in this area, Ray v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 435 U.S. 151, 157 , 98 S.Ct. 988, 994 , 55 L.Ed.2d 179 (1978) or (2) where a state statute “actually conflicts with a valid federal statute.” Id: at 158, 98 S.Ct. at 994. [McGlynn v. N.J. 1987A state statute violates the supremacy clause (1) where “Congress has either explicitly or implicitly declared that the states are prohibited from regulating” in this area, Ray v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 435 U.S. 151, 157 , 98 S.Ct. 988, 994 , 55 L.Ed.2d 179 (1978) or (2) where a state statute “actually conflicts with a valid federal statute.” Id: at 158, 98 S.Ct. at 994. [McGlynn v. N.J. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
| Albert R. Bell v. Charles Wolff, Jr. green | 1 | 1978–1978 |
| Perez. v. Campbell green | 1 | 1977–1977 |
| Winberry v. Salisbury green | 1 | 1974–1974 |
| United States v. Pink green | 1 | 1966–1966 |
| Phillips Chemical Co. v. Dumas Independent School District green | 1 | 1964–1964 |
| M'culloch v. State of Maryland green | 1 | 1963–1963 |
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.