18 New York opinions name it 3 courts 2000–2026 4 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New York 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 |
|---|---|---|
Jones v. Rath Packing Co.green2 sentences2012Under the doctrine of federal preemption, Congress may preempt state laws, either expressly or impliedly (see Jones v Rath Packing Co., 430 US 519, 525 [1977]). 2012Under the doctrine of federal preemption, Congress may preempt state laws, either expressly or impliedly (see Jones v Rath Packing Co., 430 US 519, 525 [1977]). | 4 | 4 |
People v. Mirangreen2 sentences2014Group, Inc., 96 AD3d 24 , 27-28 [2012] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see People v Miran, 107 AD3d 28 , 36 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1044 [2013], cert denied 572 US —, 134 S Ct 2312 [2014]; Biscone v JetBlue Airways Corp., 103 AD3d 158 , 165-166 [2012], appeal dismissed 20 NY3d 1084 [2013]). 2014Group, Inc., 96 AD3d 24 , 27-28 [2012] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see People v Miran, 107 AD3d 28 , 36 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1044 [2013], cert denied 572 US —, 134 S Ct 2312 [2014]; Biscone v JetBlue Airways Corp., 103 AD3d 158 , 165-166 [2012], appeal dismissed 20 NY3d 1084 [2013]). | 3 | 3 |
In re Del Riogreen2 sentences2014Group, Inc., 96 AD3d 24 , 27-28 [2012] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see People v Miran, 107 AD3d 28 , 36 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1044 [2013], cert denied 572 US —, 134 S Ct 2312 [2014]; Biscone v JetBlue Airways Corp., 103 AD3d 158 , 165-166 [2012], appeal dismissed 20 NY3d 1084 [2013]). 2014Group, Inc., 96 AD3d 24 , 27-28 [2012] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see People v Miran, 107 AD3d 28 , 36 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1044 [2013], cert denied 572 US —, 134 S Ct 2312 [2014]; Biscone v JetBlue Airways Corp., 103 AD3d 158 , 165-166 [2012], appeal dismissed 20 NY3d 1084 [2013]). | 3 | 3 |
People v. First American Corp.green2 sentences2012Corp., 18 NY3d at 179 [in undertaking a federal preemption analysis, “a court’s sole task is to ascertain the intent of Congress” (internal quotation marks omitted)]). 2012Corp., 18 NY3d at 179 [in undertaking a federal preemption analysis, “a court’s sole task is to ascertain the intent of Congress” (internal quotation marks omitted)]). | 2 | 2 |
Atlas Van Lines, Inc. v. Tax Appeals Tribunalgreen2 sentences2025"The federal preemption doctrine has its [*2]roots in the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, and federal preemption of state laws generally can occur in three ways: where Congress has expressly preempted state law, where Congress has legislated so comprehensively that federal law occupies an entire field of regulation and leaves no room for state law, or where federal law conflicts with state law" ( Matter of Atlas Van Lines, Inc. v Tax Appeals Trib. of the State of N.Y. , 123 AD3d 168 , 174 [3d Dept 2014] [internal quotation marks, ellipsis, brackets and citations omitted], l 2025"The federal preemption doctrine has its [*2]roots in the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, and federal preemption of state laws generally can occur in three ways: where Congress has expressly preempted state law, where Congress has legislated so comprehensively that federal law occupies an entire field of regulation and leaves no room for state law, or where federal law conflicts with state law" ( Matter of Atlas Van Lines, Inc. v Tax Appeals Trib. of the State of N.Y. , 123 AD3d 168, 174 [3d Dept 2014] [internal quotation marks, ellipsis, brackets and citations omitted], lv | 1 | 2 |
Wyeth v. Levinegreen1 sentence2026To this point, a federal preemption challenge becomes "particularly weak where Congress has indicated its awareness of the operation of state law in a field of federal interest, and has nonetheless decided to stand by both concepts and to tolerate whatever tension there is between them" ( Wyeth v Levine , 555 US 555, 575 [2009] [internal quotation marks, brackets and citation omitted]). | 1 | 1 |
Matter of Quigley v. Village of E. Auroragreen2 sentences2025Aurora , 193 AD3d 207, 210-211 [3d Dept 2021], lv denied 37 NY3d 908 [2021]; see US Const, art VI, cl 2; Sutton 58 Assoc. 2025Aurora , 193 AD3d 207, 210-211 [3d Dept 2021], lv denied 37 NY3d 908 [2021]; see US Const, art VI, cl 2; Sutton 58 Assoc. | 1 | 1 |
Matter of Schwenger v. NYU School of Medicinegreen1 sentence2021LLC v Pilevsky , ___ NY3d ___, ___, 2020 NY Slip Op 06939 , *4 [2020]; Matter of Schwenger v NYU Sch. of Medicine , 126 AD3d 1056, 1057-1058 [2015], lv dismissed 26 NY3d 962 [2015]). | 1 | 1 |
Garcia v. Vanguard Car Rental USA, Inc.green1 sentence2017However, while that requirement is explicitly not superseded under the Graves Amendment, its survival in no way undercuts the Graves Amendment's absolute exemption of commercial renters and lessors of motor vehicles from liability for damages caused solely by the negligence of those who rent or lease from them; to hold otherwise would rescue every vicarious liability suit in New York State, at least up to the $10,000 statutory minimum insurance amount for property damage set forth in Vehicle and Traffic Law § 370 (1) (b), and would, to that extent, render the federal preemption clause (US Cons | 1 | 1 |
Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs' Legal Committeegreen1 sentence2008In fact, such claims are impliedly preempted by federal law, because enforcement of the FDCA, including the MDA, is the sole province of the federal government (see Buckman Co. v Plaintiffs’ Legal Comm., 531 US 341, 348-349 [2001]); there are no private causes of action for noncompliance with the MDA (id. at 349 n 4). | 1 | 1 |
Delta Air Lines v. New York State Division of Human Rightsgreen1 sentence2005Federal preemption can only occur where Congress explicitly preempts state law, where preemption is implied because Congress has occupied the entire field, and where preemption is implied because there is an actual conflict between federal and state law (see Schneidewind v ANR Pipeline Co., 485 US 293, 299-300 [1988]; Matter of Delta Air Lines v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 91 NY2d 65, 71 [1997]). | 1 | 1 |
Schneidewind v. ANR Pipeline Co.green1 sentence2005Federal preemption can only occur where Congress explicitly preempts state law, where preemption is implied because Congress has occupied the entire field, and where preemption is implied because there is an actual conflict between federal and state law (see Schneidewind v ANR Pipeline Co., 485 US 293, 299-300 [1988]; Matter of Delta Air Lines v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 91 NY2d 65, 71 [1997]). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Sharabani v. Simon Property Group, Inc.
green
2 sentences2026Group, Inc. , 96 AD3d 24 , 28; see New York SMSA Ltd. 2014Group, Inc., 96 AD3d 24 , 27-28 [2012] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see People v Miran, 107 AD3d 28 , 36 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1044 [2013], cert denied 572 US —, 134 S Ct 2312 [2014]; Biscone v JetBlue Airways Corp., 103 AD3d 158 , 165-166 [2012], appeal dismissed 20 NY3d 1084 [2013]). | 6 | 2012–2026 |
Biscone v. JetBlue Airways Corp.
green
2 sentences2014Group, Inc., 96 AD3d 24 , 27-28 [2012] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see People v Miran, 107 AD3d 28 , 36 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1044 [2013], cert denied 572 US —, 134 S Ct 2312 [2014]; Biscone v JetBlue Airways Corp., 103 AD3d 158 , 165-166 [2012], appeal dismissed 20 NY3d 1084 [2013]). 2014Group, Inc., 96 AD3d 24 , 27-28 [2012] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see People v Miran, 107 AD3d 28 , 36 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1044 [2013], cert denied 572 US —, 134 S Ct 2312 [2014]; Biscone v JetBlue Airways Corp., 103 AD3d 158 , 165-166 [2012], appeal dismissed 20 NY3d 1084 [2013]). | 3 | 2014–2014 |
Biscone v. JetBlue Airways Corp.
neutral
2 sentences2014Group, Inc., 96 AD3d 24 , 27-28 [2012] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see People v Miran, 107 AD3d 28 , 36 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1044 [2013], cert denied 572 US —, 134 S Ct 2312 [2014]; Biscone v JetBlue Airways Corp., 103 AD3d 158 , 165-166 [2012], appeal dismissed 20 NY3d 1084 [2013]). 2014Group, Inc., 96 AD3d 24 , 27-28 [2012] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see People v Miran, 107 AD3d 28 , 36 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1044 [2013], cert denied 572 US —, 134 S Ct 2312 [2014]; Biscone v JetBlue Airways Corp., 103 AD3d 158 , 165-166 [2012], appeal dismissed 20 NY3d 1084 [2013]). | 3 | 2014–2014 |
Altria Group, Inc. v. Good
green
2 sentences2012In every inquiry into the scope of a statute’s preemptive effect, the intent and purpose of congressional legislation is the ultimate touchstone (see Altria Group, Inc. v Good, 555 US 70, 76 ; People v First Am. 2012In every inquiry into the scope of a statute’s preemptive effect, the intent and purpose of congressional legislation is the ultimate touchstone (see Altria Group, Inc. v Good, 555 US 70, 76 ; People v First Am. | 2 | 2012–2012 |
PII Sam, LLC v. Mazzurco
green
1 sentence2021LLC v Pilevsky , ___ NY3d ___, ___, 2020 NY Slip Op 06939 , *4 [2020]; Matter of Schwenger v NYU Sch. of Medicine , 126 AD3d 1056, 1057-1058 [2015], lv dismissed 26 NY3d 962 [2015]). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Saratoga County Chamber of Commerce, Inc. v. Pataki
green
1 sentence2002On the prior appeal, we denied defendants’ motions to dismiss the complaints for failure to join an indispensable party, lack of standing or legal capacity to sue, or as barred by the doctrine of federal preemption, the applicable statute of limitations, or laches ( 275 AD2d 145 , supra). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Liker v. Grossman
neutral
1 sentence2000At the outset, we note that since the plaintiffs had a full and fair opportunity to argue the merits of the Federal preemption defense in opposing the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, the defendants’ failure to assert that defense in their answer did not constitute a waiver (see, McSorley v Philip Morris, Inc., 170 AD2d 440 ; Adsit v Quantum Chem. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Adsit v. Quantum Chemical Corp.
green
1 sentence2000Corp., 199 AD2d 899 ). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
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.