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.
16 Kansas opinions name it 3 courts 1922–2026 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Kansas 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 |
|---|---|---|
FERC v. Electric Power Supply Assn.green1 sentence2026The district court began by addressing field preemption and concluded that "[t]he federal government does not 'occupy the field' in electric energy as it relates to state interests." In reaching this conclusion, the court explained that in EPSA, 577 U.S. at 267, the United States Supreme Court explicitly held that the states have authority to regulate the retail sale of electricity within their territories—that is, over issues involving intrastate electricity and the safety and reliability of their own grid. | 1 | 1 |
Friberg v. Kansas City Southern Railway Co.green1 sentence2018Here 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')." Norfolk S. Ry. | 1 | 1 |
Hillman v. Marettagreen2 sentences2017See Hillman v. Maretta, 569 U.S. __ , 133 S. Ct. 1943, 1954 , 186 L. 2017See Hillman v. Maretta, 569 U.S. __ , 133 S. Ct. 1943, 1954 , 186 L. | 1 | 1 |
McGinley v. Bank of America, N.A.green2 sentences2007See McGinley v. Bank of America, N.A., 279 Kan. 426, 444 , 109 P.3d 1146 (2005) (issues not briefed are deemed abandoned). 2007See McGinley v. Bank of America, N.A., 279 Kan. 426, 444 , 109 P.3d 1146 (2005) (issues not briefed are deemed abandoned). | 1 | 1 |
CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Public Utilities Commissiongreen1 sentence1993See CSX Transp. v. Public Utilities Comm'n of Ohio , 701 F. Supp. 608 (S.D.Ohio 1988) (discussion of the preemption doctrine analysis that focuses on congressional intent.) The exception allows a state to adopt a more stringent law or regulation in the area of railroad safety but only when enacted to eliminate a local safety hazard, where the state law or rule is not incompatible with federal law and when not an undue burden to interstate commerce. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
American Airlines, Inc. v. Wolens
green
2 sentences2022Reconciling the 2012 fee schedule with federal law "The ADA's preemption clause . . . read together with the [Federal Aviation Act's] saving clause, ['preserving "the remedies now existing at common law or by statute"'], stops States from imposing their own substantive standards with respect to rates, routes, or services . . . ." Wolens, 513 U.S. at 232 . 2007Ed. 2d 715 , 115 S. Ct. 817 (1995) (holding a generally worded consumer protection act fell within ADA preemption). if the KCPA unconscionability provision is expressly preempted because it relates to price under 49 U.S.C. § 14501 (c)(1), it is also a law relating to price under the preemption exception established by 49 U.S.C. § 14501 (c)(2)(C). | 2 | 2007–2022 |
Inland Industries, Inc. v. Teamsters & Chauffeurs Local Union No. 541
green
2 sentences1977Local Union No. 101, 178 Kan. 422 , 286 P. 2d 160 ; Friesen v. General Team & Truck Drivers Local Union No. 54, 181 Kan. 769 , 317 P. 2d 366 ; Asphalt Paving v. Local Union, 181 Kan. 775 , 317 P. 2d 349 ; Hyde Park Dairies v. Local Union No. 795, 182 Kan. 440 , 321 P. 2d 564 ; Inland Industries, Inc. v. Teamsters & Chauffeurs Local Union, 209 Kan. 349 , 496 P. 2d 1327 .) The Kansas legislature has also recognized the preemption doctrine. 1977Local Union No. 101, 178 Kan. 422 , 286 P. 2d 160 ; Friesen v. General Team & Truck Drivers Local Union No. 54, 181 Kan. 769 , 317 P. 2d 366 ; Asphalt Paving v. Local Union, 181 Kan. 775 , 317 P. 2d 349 ; Hyde Park Dairies v. Local Union No. 795, 182 Kan. 440 , 321 P. 2d 564 ; Inland Industries, Inc. v. Teamsters & Chauffeurs Local Union, 209 Kan. 349 , 496 P. 2d 1327 .) The Kansas legislature has also recognized the preemption doctrine. | 2 | 1977–1984 |
State of Indiana v. Norfolk Southern Railway Company
green
1 sentence2018Co. , 107 N.E.3d at 476 . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Arizona v. United States
green
1 sentence2015In conducting a preemption analysis, “courts should assume that ‘the historic police powers of the States’ are not superseded ‘unless that was the clear and manifest purpose of Congress.’” Arizona, 132 S. Ct. at 2501 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Lehto v. Allstate Insurance
green
1 sentence1997We have recently reviewed the federal preemption doctrine in Jenkins v. Amchem Products, Inc., 256 Kan. 602, 607-08 , 886 P.2d 869 (1994), cert. denied 133 L. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Jenkins v. Amchem Products, Inc.
green
2 sentences1997We have recently reviewed the federal preemption doctrine in Jenkins v. Amchem Products, Inc., 256 Kan. 602, 607-08 , 886 P.2d 869 (1994), cert. denied 133 L. 1997We have recently reviewed the federal preemption doctrine in Jenkins v. Amchem Products, Inc., 256 Kan. 602, 607-08 , 886 P.2d 869 (1994), cert. denied 133 L. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Elkins v. Showcase, Inc.
green
2 sentences1997Ed. 2d at 422-23.” In Elkins v. Showcase, Inc., 237 Kan. 720 , 704 P.2d 977 (1985), we discussed the meaning of conflict between federal and state law in regards to preemption. 1997Ed. 2d at 422-23.” In Elkins v. Showcase, Inc., 237 Kan. 720 , 704 P.2d 977 (1985), we discussed the meaning of conflict between federal and state law in regards to preemption. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Louisiana Pub. Serv. Comm'n v. FCC
green
2 sentences1995Louisiana Public Service Comm'n. v. F.C.C ., 476 U.S. 355 , 106 S.Ct. 1890 , 90 L.Ed.2d 369 (1986). 1995Louisiana Public Service Comm'n. v. F.C.C ., 476 U.S. 355 , 106 S.Ct. 1890 , 90 L.Ed.2d 369 (1986). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc.
green
1 sentence1994Cipollone, 120 L. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Capital Cities Cable, Inc. v. Crisp
green
2 sentences1987The preemption doctrine applies to regulations as well as statutes. *612 Capital Cities Cable, Inc. v. Crisp, 467 U.S. 691, 81 L. 1987The preemption doctrine applies to regulations as well as statutes. *612 Capital Cities Cable, Inc. v. Crisp, 467 U.S. 691, 81 L. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Whelan's, Inc. v. Kansas Department of Human Resources
green
2 sentences1985In Whelan's Inc. v. Kansas *728 Dept. of Human Resources, 235 Kan. 425 , 681 P.2d 621 (1984), it was held that the preemption doctrine is not to be applied in a manner which “sweeps away state-court jurisdiction.” The court held that a wage issue peripheral to an unfair labor practice issue is not preempted by the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) resolution of the labor issue. 1985In Whelan's Inc. v. Kansas *728 Dept. of Human Resources, 235 Kan. 425 , 681 P.2d 621 (1984), it was held that the preemption doctrine is not to be applied in a manner which “sweeps away state-court jurisdiction.” The court held that a wage issue peripheral to an unfair labor practice issue is not preempted by the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) resolution of the labor issue. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers v. Russell
green
2 sentences1984Specifically, it noted malicious libel in Linn v. Plant Guard Workers, 383 U.S. 53 , 15 L.Ed.2d 582 , 86 S.Ct. 657 (1966); potentially violent mass pick *367 etingin Automobile Workers v. Russell, 356 U.S. 634 , 2 L.Ed.2d 1030 , 78 S.Ct. 932 (1958); and wrongful expulsion from union membership in Machinists v. Gonzales, 356 U.S. 617 , 2 L.Ed.2d 1018 , 78 S.Ct. 923 (1958). 1984Specifically, it noted malicious libel in Linn v. Plant Guard Workers, 383 U.S. 53 , 15 L.Ed.2d 582 , 86 S.Ct. 657 (1966); potentially violent mass pick *367 etingin Automobile Workers v. Russell, 356 U.S. 634 , 2 L.Ed.2d 1030 , 78 S.Ct. 932 (1958); and wrongful expulsion from union membership in Machinists v. Gonzales, 356 U.S. 617 , 2 L.Ed.2d 1018 , 78 S.Ct. 923 (1958). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
International Ass'n of MacHinists v. Gonzales
green
2 sentences1984Specifically, it noted malicious libel in Linn v. Plant Guard Workers, 383 U.S. 53 , 15 L.Ed.2d 582 , 86 S.Ct. 657 (1966); potentially violent mass pick *367 etingin Automobile Workers v. Russell, 356 U.S. 634 , 2 L.Ed.2d 1030 , 78 S.Ct. 932 (1958); and wrongful expulsion from union membership in Machinists v. Gonzales, 356 U.S. 617 , 2 L.Ed.2d 1018 , 78 S.Ct. 923 (1958). 1984Specifically, it noted malicious libel in Linn v. Plant Guard Workers, 383 U.S. 53 , 15 L.Ed.2d 582 , 86 S.Ct. 657 (1966); potentially violent mass pick *367 etingin Automobile Workers v. Russell, 356 U.S. 634 , 2 L.Ed.2d 1030 , 78 S.Ct. 932 (1958); and wrongful expulsion from union membership in Machinists v. Gonzales, 356 U.S. 617 , 2 L.Ed.2d 1018 , 78 S.Ct. 923 (1958). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Linn v. United Plant Guard Workers of America, Local 114
green
2 sentences1984Specifically, it noted malicious libel in Linn v. Plant Guard Workers, 383 U.S. 53 , 15 L.Ed.2d 582 , 86 S.Ct. 657 (1966); potentially violent mass pick *367 etingin Automobile Workers v. Russell, 356 U.S. 634 , 2 L.Ed.2d 1030 , 78 S.Ct. 932 (1958); and wrongful expulsion from union membership in Machinists v. Gonzales, 356 U.S. 617 , 2 L.Ed.2d 1018 , 78 S.Ct. 923 (1958). 1984Specifically, it noted malicious libel in Linn v. Plant Guard Workers, 383 U.S. 53 , 15 L.Ed.2d 582 , 86 S.Ct. 657 (1966); potentially violent mass pick *367 etingin Automobile Workers v. Russell, 356 U.S. 634 , 2 L.Ed.2d 1030 , 78 S.Ct. 932 (1958); and wrongful expulsion from union membership in Machinists v. Gonzales, 356 U.S. 617 , 2 L.Ed.2d 1018 , 78 S.Ct. 923 (1958). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Farmer v. United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America, Local 25
green
1 sentence1984However, the trial court permitted a trial on the outrage claim, based on the exception to the preemption doctrine found in Farmer v. Carpenters, 430 U.S. 290 . | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Kaw Paving Co. v. International Union of Operating Engineers
green
2 sentences1977(Kaw Paving Co. v. International Union of Operating Engineers, 178 Kan. 467 , 290 P. 2d 110 ; Texas Const. Co. v. H. & P.E. 1977(Kaw Paving Co. v. International Union of Operating Engineers, 178 Kan. 467 , 290 P. 2d 110 ; Texas Const. Co. v. H. & P.E. | 1 | 1977–1977 |
San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon
green
2 sentences1977The leading case which supports the preemption doctrine is San Diego Unions v. Garmon, 359 U.S. 236 , 3 L. 1977The leading case which supports the preemption doctrine is San Diego Unions v. Garmon, 359 U.S. 236 , 3 L. | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Texas Construction Co. v. Hoisting & Portable Engineers' Local Union No. 101
neutral
2 sentences1977Local Union No. 101, 178 Kan. 422 , 286 P. 2d 160 ; Friesen v. General Team & Truck Drivers Local Union No. 54, 181 Kan. 769 , 317 P. 2d 366 ; Asphalt Paving v. Local Union, 181 Kan. 775 , 317 P. 2d 349 ; Hyde Park Dairies v. Local Union No. 795, 182 Kan. 440 , 321 P. 2d 564 ; Inland Industries, Inc. v. Teamsters & Chauffeurs Local Union, 209 Kan. 349 , 496 P. 2d 1327 .) The Kansas legislature has also recognized the preemption doctrine. 1977Local Union No. 101, 178 Kan. 422 , 286 P. 2d 160 ; Friesen v. General Team & Truck Drivers Local Union No. 54, 181 Kan. 769 , 317 P. 2d 366 ; Asphalt Paving v. Local Union, 181 Kan. 775 , 317 P. 2d 349 ; Hyde Park Dairies v. Local Union No. 795, 182 Kan. 440 , 321 P. 2d 564 ; Inland Industries, Inc. v. Teamsters & Chauffeurs Local Union, 209 Kan. 349 , 496 P. 2d 1327 .) The Kansas legislature has also recognized the preemption doctrine. | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Hyde Park Dairies, Inc. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local Union No. 795
neutral
2 sentences1977Local Union No. 101, 178 Kan. 422 , 286 P. 2d 160 ; Friesen v. General Team & Truck Drivers Local Union No. 54, 181 Kan. 769 , 317 P. 2d 366 ; Asphalt Paving v. Local Union, 181 Kan. 775 , 317 P. 2d 349 ; Hyde Park Dairies v. Local Union No. 795, 182 Kan. 440 , 321 P. 2d 564 ; Inland Industries, Inc. v. Teamsters & Chauffeurs Local Union, 209 Kan. 349 , 496 P. 2d 1327 .) The Kansas legislature has also recognized the preemption doctrine. 1977Local Union No. 101, 178 Kan. 422 , 286 P. 2d 160 ; Friesen v. General Team & Truck Drivers Local Union No. 54, 181 Kan. 769 , 317 P. 2d 366 ; Asphalt Paving v. Local Union, 181 Kan. 775 , 317 P. 2d 349 ; Hyde Park Dairies v. Local Union No. 795, 182 Kan. 440 , 321 P. 2d 564 ; Inland Industries, Inc. v. Teamsters & Chauffeurs Local Union, 209 Kan. 349 , 496 P. 2d 1327 .) The Kansas legislature has also recognized the preemption doctrine. | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Friesen v. GEN. TEAM & TRUCK DRIVERS LOCAL UNION NO. 54
neutral
2 sentences1977Local Union No. 101, 178 Kan. 422 , 286 P. 2d 160 ; Friesen v. General Team & Truck Drivers Local Union No. 54, 181 Kan. 769 , 317 P. 2d 366 ; Asphalt Paving v. Local Union, 181 Kan. 775 , 317 P. 2d 349 ; Hyde Park Dairies v. Local Union No. 795, 182 Kan. 440 , 321 P. 2d 564 ; Inland Industries, Inc. v. Teamsters & Chauffeurs Local Union, 209 Kan. 349 , 496 P. 2d 1327 .) The Kansas legislature has also recognized the preemption doctrine. 1977Local Union No. 101, 178 Kan. 422 , 286 P. 2d 160 ; Friesen v. General Team & Truck Drivers Local Union No. 54, 181 Kan. 769 , 317 P. 2d 366 ; Asphalt Paving v. Local Union, 181 Kan. 775 , 317 P. 2d 349 ; Hyde Park Dairies v. Local Union No. 795, 182 Kan. 440 , 321 P. 2d 564 ; Inland Industries, Inc. v. Teamsters & Chauffeurs Local Union, 209 Kan. 349 , 496 P. 2d 1327 .) The Kansas legislature has also recognized the preemption doctrine. | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Asphalt Paving, Inc. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Stablemen & Helpers of America, Local Union No. 795
neutral
2 sentences1977Local Union No. 101, 178 Kan. 422 , 286 P. 2d 160 ; Friesen v. General Team & Truck Drivers Local Union No. 54, 181 Kan. 769 , 317 P. 2d 366 ; Asphalt Paving v. Local Union, 181 Kan. 775 , 317 P. 2d 349 ; Hyde Park Dairies v. Local Union No. 795, 182 Kan. 440 , 321 P. 2d 564 ; Inland Industries, Inc. v. Teamsters & Chauffeurs Local Union, 209 Kan. 349 , 496 P. 2d 1327 .) The Kansas legislature has also recognized the preemption doctrine. 1977Local Union No. 101, 178 Kan. 422 , 286 P. 2d 160 ; Friesen v. General Team & Truck Drivers Local Union No. 54, 181 Kan. 769 , 317 P. 2d 366 ; Asphalt Paving v. Local Union, 181 Kan. 775 , 317 P. 2d 349 ; Hyde Park Dairies v. Local Union No. 795, 182 Kan. 440 , 321 P. 2d 564 ; Inland Industries, Inc. v. Teamsters & Chauffeurs Local Union, 209 Kan. 349 , 496 P. 2d 1327 .) The Kansas legislature has also recognized the preemption doctrine. | 1 | 1977–1977 |
The Ponce
neutral
1 sentence1922The preemption claim relied upon, as disclosed in the opinion of the circuit court of appeals ( 178 Fed. 76 .3, 754), was initiated June 16, 1866. | 1 | 1922–1922 |
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.