24 Florida opinions name it 3 courts 1962–2021 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Florida 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 |
|---|---|---|
Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp.green2 sentences2017A preemption analysis begins “with the assumption that the historic police powers of the States were not to be superseded by [federal law] unless that was the clear and manifest purpose of Congress.” Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U.S. 218, 230 , 67 S.Ct. 1146 , 91 L.Ed. 1447 (1947). 2017A preemption analysis begins “with the assumption that the historic police powers of the States were not to be superseded by [federal law] unless that was the clear and manifest purpose of Congress.” Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U.S. 218, 230 , 67 S.Ct. 1146 , 91 L.Ed. 1447 (1947). | 1 | 2 |
Tribune Co. v. Cannellagreen2 sentences1987See also, Tribune Company v. Cannella, 458 So.2d 1075 , 1077 (Fla. 1984) (under the preemption doctrine a subject is preempted by a senior legislative body from action by a junior legislative body if the senior legislative body's scheme of regulation of the subject is pervasive and if further regulation of the subject by the junior legislative body would present a danger or conflict with that pervasive regulatory scheme). 1986Fla., 1981), pet. for rev. den., 408 So.2d 1092 (Fla. 1981) (municipal ordinances are inferior to state law and must fail if a conflict arises); Tribune Company v. Cannella, 458 So.2d 1075 (Fla. 1984), appeal dismissed sub nom., DePerte v. Tribune Company, 53 U.S.L.W. 3807 (May 14, 1985), discussing the preemption doctrine as it pertains to the Public Records Act, Ch. 119 , F.S. | 1 | 2 |
Point Conversion, LLC v. Tropical Paradise Resorts, LLCgreen1 sentence2021See Tropical Paradise Resorts, LLC, 339 F. Supp. 3d at 1353 ; see also Tropical Paradise Resorts, LLC v. JBSHBM, LLC, 2019 WL 78983 , at *2 (finding no error in the conclusion that Point Conversions’ state-law counterclaims were preempted by federal patent law). | 1 | 1 |
Barragan v. City of Miamigreen1 sentence2020Cf. D’Agastino v. City of Miami, 220 So. 3d 410, 421 (Fla. 2017) (observing that preemption arises precisely because state legislature is constitutionally superior to local government); City of Palm Bay v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 114 So. 3d 924, 928 (Fla. 2013) (observing that when ordinance “flies in the face of state law” and cannot be reconciled with it, there is preemption and it “cannot be sustained”) (quoting Barragan v. City of Miami, 545 So. 2d 252, 255 (Fla. 1989)). | 1 | 1 |
Ronald Williams v. State of Floridagreen1 sentence2020Thus, we must begin our analysis with “the actual language used in the [order] because [the Governor’s] intent is determined first and foremost from the . . . text.” Williams v. State, 186 So. 3d 989, 991 (Fla. 2016) (quoting Raymond James Fin. | 1 | 1 |
Club Madonna, Inc. v. City of Miami Beachgreen1 sentence2020Club Madonna, Inc. v. City of Miami Beach, 924 F.3d 1370, 1380 (11th Cir. 2019). | 1 | 1 |
City of Palm Bay v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.green1 sentence2020Cf. D’Agastino v. City of Miami, 220 So. 3d 410, 421 (Fla. 2017) (observing that preemption arises precisely because state legislature is constitutionally superior to local government); City of Palm Bay v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 114 So. 3d 924, 928 (Fla. 2013) (observing that when ordinance “flies in the face of state law” and cannot be reconciled with it, there is preemption and it “cannot be sustained”) (quoting Barragan v. City of Miami, 545 So. 2d 252, 255 (Fla. 1989)). | 1 | 1 |
D'Agastino v. City of Miamigreen1 sentence2020Cf. D’Agastino v. City of Miami, 220 So. 3d 410, 421 (Fla. 2017) (observing that preemption arises precisely because state legislature is constitutionally superior to local government); City of Palm Bay v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 114 So. 3d 924, 928 (Fla. 2013) (observing that when ordinance “flies in the face of state law” and cannot be reconciled with it, there is preemption and it “cannot be sustained”) (quoting Barragan v. City of Miami, 545 So. 2d 252, 255 (Fla. 1989)). | 1 | 1 |
Vargas v. Enterprise Leasing Co.green1 sentence2019Vargas, 60 So. 3d at 1042 (emphasis added). | 1 | 1 |
Lowe v. Broward Countygreen1 sentence2016Preemption The Florida Supreme Court has stated: “A local government enactment may be inconsistent with state law if (1) the Legislature ‘has preempted a particular subject area’ or (2) the local enactment conflicts with a state statute.” Sarasota Alliance For Fair Elections, Inc. v. Browning, 28 So.3d 880, 886 (Fla.2010), citing Lowe v. Broward County, 766 So.2d 1199, 1206-07 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). 4 The Court in Sarasota Alliance went on to explain the preemption doctrine as follows: Florida law recognizes two types of preemption: express and implied. | 1 | 1 |
Sarasota Alliance for Fair Elections, Inc. v. Browninggreen1 sentence2016Preemption The Florida Supreme Court has stated: “A local government enactment may be inconsistent with state law if (1) the Legislature ‘has preempted a particular subject area’ or (2) the local enactment conflicts with a state statute.” Sarasota Alliance For Fair Elections, Inc. v. Browning, 28 So.3d 880, 886 (Fla.2010), citing Lowe v. Broward County, 766 So.2d 1199, 1206-07 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). 4 The Court in Sarasota Alliance went on to explain the preemption doctrine as follows: Florida law recognizes two types of preemption: express and implied. | 1 | 1 |
Johnson v. Stategreen1 sentence2016While experimental and special conditions are not defined by chapter 316, we find that the local governments read these provisions so broadly that their proposed exceptions would swallow the doctrine of preemption. 12 “Judicial interpretations of statutes are pure questions of law subject to de novo review.” Johnson v. State, 78 So.3d 1305, 1310 (Fla.2012). | 1 | 1 |
Hughes v. Stategreen1 sentence2008Hughes v. State, 943 So.2d 176, 185 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006), review denied, 959 So.2d 716 (Fla.2007); see also Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U.S. 218, 230 , 67 S.Ct. 1146 , 91 L.Ed. 1447 (1947) (asserting that when Congress legislates in a field that the states have traditionally occupied, the court "start[s] with the assumption that the historic police powers of the States were not to be superseded by the Federal Act unless that was the clear and manifest purpose of Congress") (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Ramah Navajo School Bd., Inc. v. Bureau of Revenue of NMgreen2 sentences1986See Ramah Navajo School Board v. Bureau of Revenue of New Mexico, 458 U.S. 832 , 102 S.Ct. 3394 , 73 L.Ed.2d 1174 (1982). 1986See Ramah Navajo School Board v. Bureau of Revenue of New Mexico, 458 U.S. 832 , 102 S.Ct. 3394 , 73 L.Ed.2d 1174 (1982). | 1 | 1 |
| Edwards v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Rednergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Christopher Scott Hughes v. Eleventh Judicial
green
2 sentences2006Hughes v. Attorney Gen. of Fla., 377 F.3d 1258 (11th Cir.2004), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 1051 , 125 S.Ct. 881 , 160 L.Ed.2d 772 (2005). 2006Hughes v. Attorney Gen. of Fla., 377 F.3d 1258 (11th Cir.2004), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 1051 , 125 S.Ct. 881 , 160 L.Ed.2d 772 (2005). | 2 | 2006–2006 |
Hernandez-Angeles v. Ashcroft, Attorney General
green
2 sentences2006Hughes v. Attorney Gen. of Fla., 377 F.3d 1258 (11th Cir.2004), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 1051 , 125 S.Ct. 881 , 160 L.Ed.2d 772 (2005). 2006Hughes v. Attorney Gen. of Fla., 377 F.3d 1258 (11th Cir.2004), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 1051 , 125 S.Ct. 881 , 160 L.Ed.2d 772 (2005). | 2 | 2006–2006 |
H&r Block, Inc. v. Carnegie, on Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated
green
2 sentences2006Hughes v. Attorney Gen. of Fla., 377 F.3d 1258 (11th Cir.2004), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 1051 , 125 S.Ct. 881 , 160 L.Ed.2d 772 (2005). 2006Hughes v. Attorney Gen. of Fla., 377 F.3d 1258 (11th Cir.2004), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 1051 , 125 S.Ct. 881 , 160 L.Ed.2d 772 (2005). | 2 | 2006–2006 |
Acklin v. Dretke, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division
neutral
2 sentences2006Hughes v. Attorney Gen. of Fla., 377 F.3d 1258 (11th Cir.2004), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 1051 , 125 S.Ct. 881 , 160 L.Ed.2d 772 (2005). 2006Hughes v. Attorney Gen. of Fla., 377 F.3d 1258 (11th Cir.2004), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 1051 , 125 S.Ct. 881 , 160 L.Ed.2d 772 (2005). | 2 | 2006–2006 |
Altria Group, Inc. v. Good
green
2 sentences2017Congressional purpose is “the ultimate touchstone in every pre-emption case.” Vreeland, 71 So.3d at 77 (quoting Altria Grp., Inc. v. Good, 555 U.S. 70, 76 , 129 S.Ct. 538 , 172 L.Ed.2d 398 (2008)). 2017Congressional purpose is “the ultimate touchstone in every pre-emption case.” Vreeland, 71 So.3d at 77 (quoting Altria Grp., Inc. v. Good, 555 U.S. 70, 76 , 129 S.Ct. 538 , 172 L.Ed.2d 398 (2008)). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Vreeland v. Ferrer
green
1 sentence2017Congressional purpose is “the ultimate touchstone in every pre-emption case.” Vreeland, 71 So.3d at 77 (quoting Altria Grp., Inc. v. Good, 555 U.S. 70, 76 , 129 S.Ct. 538 , 172 L.Ed.2d 398 (2008)). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Madden v. Midland Funding, LLC
green
1 sentence2017Id. at 255 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Jimmy Weaver and Jeanette Weaver v. Employers Underwriters, Inc., Malcolm Rodrigues, D/B/A Rodrigues Logging, and Lisa Elliott
green
1 sentence2008However, in Weaver, 13 F.3d at 177 , the Fifth Circuit explained that, "[t]he claims by a non-participant and non-beneficiary to a plan do not affect the relationship between the traditional ERISA entities. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Jackson v. State
green
1 sentence2008Hughes v. State, 943 So.2d 176, 185 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006), review denied, 959 So.2d 716 (Fla.2007); see also Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U.S. 218, 230 , 67 S.Ct. 1146 , 91 L.Ed. 1447 (1947) (asserting that when Congress legislates in a field that the states have traditionally occupied, the court "start[s] with the assumption that the historic police powers of the States were not to be superseded by the Federal Act unless that was the clear and manifest purpose of Congress") (citation omitted). | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Robinson v. Michigan Consolidated Gas Co.
green
1 sentence2008Gas Co., 918 F.2d 579 , 585 (6th Cir. 1990))). | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Forum v. Boca Burger, Inc.
green
1 sentence2005The district court held that Boca Burger could only plead the preemption defense as an affirmative defense, and therefore the issue could only be resolved on motion for summary judgment. 788 So.2d at 1062 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Martin v. Eastern Airlines, Inc.
green
2 sentences1998She cites Martin v. Eastern Airlines, Inc., 630 So.2d 1206 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994), where this court stated that an appellee's "attempt to raise the preemption defense in the instant negligence action by way of a motion to dismiss, without having raised it in the answer is violative of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.110(d)." Id. at 1208 . 1998She cites Martin v. Eastern Airlines, Inc., 630 So.2d 1206 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994), where this court stated that an appellee's "attempt to raise the preemption defense in the instant negligence action by way of a motion to dismiss, without having raised it in the answer is violative of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.110(d)." Id. at 1208 . | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Schachel v. Closet Concepts, Inc.
green
1 sentence1993In arguing that the preemption doctrine precludes the relief that Jacobs seeks, DOT relies on Schachel v. Closet Concepts, Inc., 405 So.2d 487 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Eikenberry v. Standard Oil Co.
green
1 sentence1986Fla., 1981), pet. for rev. den., 408 So.2d 1092 (Fla. 1981) (municipal ordinances are inferior to state law and must fail if a conflict arises); Tribune Company v. Cannella, 458 So.2d 1075 (Fla. 1984), appeal dismissed sub nom., DePerte v. Tribune Company, 53 U.S.L.W. 3807 (May 14, 1985), discussing the preemption doctrine as it pertains to the Public Records Act, Ch. 119 , F.S. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Erwin v. State
neutral
1 sentence1986Section 316.520 (1), F.S., provides that No vehicle shall be driven or moved on any highway unless the vehicle is so constructed or loaded as to prevent any of its load from dropping, shifting, leaking, blowing, or otherwise escaping therefrom, except that sand may be dropped only for the purpose of securing traction or water or other substance may be sprinkled on a roadway in cleaning or maintaining the roadway. (e.s.) See, Erwin v. State, 262 So.2d 677 (Fla. 1972), holding that former s. 317.781, F.S. 1969, a precursor to s. 316.520 , F.S., was not unconstitutionally vague. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Hickman
green
1 sentence1985See Dorsey v. Honda Motor Co., supra ; cf. Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Hickman, 445 So.2d 1023 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), review dismissed, 447 So.2d 887 (Fla. 1984). | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| Tribune Co. v. Cannella green | 1 | 1984–1984 |
| Linn v. United Plant Guard Workers of America, Local 114 green | 1 | 1982–1982 |
| Farmer v. United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America, Local 25 green | 1 | 1982–1982 |
| Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. San Diego County District Council of Carpenters green | 1 | 1982–1982 |
| Amalgamated Ass'n of Street, Electric Railway & Motor Coach Employees of America v. Lockridge green | 1 | 1976–1976 |
| International Ladies' Garment Workers Union v. Scherer & Sons, Inc. neutral | 1 | 1962–1962 |
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.