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.
14 Nevada opinions name it 1 courts 2000–2026 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Nevada 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 |
|---|---|---|
Nanopierce Technologies, Inc. v. Depository Trust & Clearing Corp.green2 sentences2019See Nanopierce Techs., Inc. v. Depository Tr. & Clearing Corp., 123 Nev. 362, 370 , 168 P.3d 73, 79 (2007) ("The preemption doctrine . . . provides that federal law supersedes conflicting state law . . . ."); City of Reno v. Saibini, 83 Nev. 315, 319 , 429 P.2d 559, 561 (1967) (discussing the Legislature's power to preempt local law or otherwise delegate authority to local municipalities). 2019See Nanopierce Techs., Inc. v. Depository Tr. & Clearing Corp., 123 Nev. 362, 370 , 168 P.3d 73, 79 (2007) ("The preemption doctrine . . . provides that federal law supersedes conflicting state law . . . ."); City of Reno v. Saibini, 83 Nev. 315, 319 , 429 P.2d 559, 561 (1967) (discussing the Legislature's power to preempt local law or otherwise delegate authority to local municipalities). | 5 | 7 |
Rolf Jensen & Associates, Inc. v. Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada ex rel. County of Clarkgreen2 sentences2014Court, 128 Nev. „ 282 P.3d 743, 746 (2012) ("The preemption doctrine emanates from the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, pursuant to which state law must yield when it frustrates or conflicts with federal law."). 2014Court, 128 Nev. „ 282 P.3d 743, 746 (2012) ("The preemption doctrine emanates from the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, pursuant to which state law must yield when it frustrates or conflicts with federal law."). | 2 | 2 |
Cervantes v. Health Plan of Nevada, Inc.green2 sentences2017Id. at 793-94 , 263 P.3d at 265 . 2017Id. at 793-94, 263 P.3d at 265. | 1 | 2 |
White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Brackergreen2 sentences2026See, e.g., White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker, 448 U.S. 136, 143 (1980) (“The SuPREME Court or Nevaba unique historical origins of tribal sovereignty make it generally unhelpful to apply to federal enactments regulating Indian tribes those standards of pre-emption that have emerged in other areas of the law.”). 2026See, e.g., White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracher, 448 U.S. 136, 143 (1980) ("The SUPREME COURT Or NEVADA 4 unique historical origins of tribal sovereignty make it generally unhelpful to apply to federal enactments regulating Indian tribes those standards of pre-emption that have emerged in other areas of the law."). | 1 | 1 |
City of Reno v. Saibinigreen2 sentences2019See Nanopierce Techs., Inc. v. Depository Tr. & Clearing Corp., 123 Nev. 362, 370 , 168 P.3d 73, 79 (2007) ("The preemption doctrine . . . provides that federal law supersedes conflicting state law . . . ."); City of Reno v. Saibini, 83 Nev. 315, 319 , 429 P.2d 559, 561 (1967) (discussing the Legislature's power to preempt local law or otherwise delegate authority to local municipalities). 2019See Nanopierce Techs., Inc. v. Depository Tr. & Clearing Corp., 123 Nev. 362, 370 , 168 P.3d 73, 79 (2007) ("The preemption doctrine . . . provides that federal law supersedes conflicting state law . . . ."); City of Reno v. Saibini, 83 Nev. 315, 319 , 429 P.2d 559, 561 (1967) (discussing the Legislature's power to preempt local law or otherwise delegate authority to local municipalities). | 1 | 1 |
Munda v. Summerlin Life & Health Insurancegreen2 sentences2014Morrison relies upon Munda v. Summerlin Life & Health Insurance Co., 127 Nev. , 267 P.3d 771, 776 (2011), where this court ultimately determined that the insureds' claim that their insurer was negligent in failing to comply with quality assurance standards was not preempted by ERISA. 2014Morrison relies upon Munda v. Summerlin Life & Health Insurance Co., 127 Nev. , 267 P.3d 771, 776 (2011), where this court ultimately determined that the insureds' claim that their insurer was negligent in failing to comply with quality assurance standards was not preempted by ERISA. | 1 | 1 |
Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohrgreen2 sentences2014"When a federal act contains an express preemption provision, this court's primary task is to 'identify the domain expressly pre-empted by that language." Rogers, 127 Nev. at , SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 6 (0) 1947A ce 266 P.3d at 600 (quoting Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, 518 U.S. 470, 484 (1996)). 2014Preemption "When a federal act contains an express preemption provision, this court's primary task is to 'identify the domain expressly pre-empted by that language." Pacificare of Nev., Inc. v. Rogers, 127 Nev. 266 P.3d 596, 600 (2011) (quoting Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, 518 U.S. 470, 484 (1996)). | 1 | 1 |
WRH Mortgage, Inc. v. Butlergreen2 sentences2014Moreover, in contesting Rhodes' motion to dismiss its complaint, the FDIC cited to two authorities that concerned the preemption doctrine for its contention that the FDIC extender statute governed its deficiency judgment action: Stonehedge I Fasa-Texas JDC v. Miller, No. 96-10037, 1997 WL 119899 (5th Cir. March 10, 1997), and WRH Mortgage, Inc. v. Butler, 684 So. 2d 325 (Fla. Dist. 2014Kan. 1993) (applying the preemption doctrine to conclude that a federal statute preempted a state statute of repose while rejecting the argument that a statute of repose is immunized from being preempted because it is SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 14 (0) 1947A e substantive in nature); Butler, 684 So. 2d at 327-28 (concluding that the FDIC extender statute preempted a state statutory time limitation, regardless of whether the latter was a statute of limitations or repose); Tow v. Pagano, 312 S.W.3d 751, 761 (Tex. App. 2009) (concluding that a federal statute can preempt a state statute of repose, al | 1 | 1 |
Tow v. Paganogreen2 sentences2014Kan. 1993) (applying the preemption doctrine to conclude that a federal statute preempted a state statute of repose while rejecting the argument that a statute of repose is immunized from being preempted because it is SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 14 (0) 1947A e substantive in nature); Butler, 684 So. 2d at 327-28 (concluding that the FDIC extender statute preempted a state statutory time limitation, regardless of whether the latter was a statute of limitations or repose); Tow v. Pagano, 312 S.W.3d 751, 761 (Tex. App. 2009) (concluding that a federal statute can preempt a state statute of repose, al 2014Kan. 1993) (applying the preemption doctrine to conclude that a federal statute preempted a state statute of repose while rejecting the argument that a statute of repose is immunized from being preempted because it is SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 14 (0) 1947A e substantive in nature); Butler, 684 So. 2d at 327-28 (concluding that the FDIC extender statute preempted a state statutory time limitation, regardless of whether the latter was a statute of limitations or repose); Tow v. Pagano, 312 S.W.3d 751, 761 (Tex. App. 2009) (concluding that a federal statute can preempt a state statute of repose, al | 1 | 1 |
Peter Waldburger v. CTS Corporationgreen2 sentences2014See, e.g., Waldburger v. CTS Corp., 723 F.3d 434, 438, 442-44 (4th Cir. 2013) (employing the preemption doctrine to resolve a conflict between a federal statutory time limitation and a state statute of SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 6 (0) 1947A repose), rev'd on other grounds, 573 U.S. , 134 S. Ct. 2175 (2014); In re Countrywide Fin. 2014See, e.g., Waldburger v. CTS Corp., 723 F.3d 434, 438, 442-44 (4th Cir. 2013) (employing the preemption doctrine to resolve a conflict between a federal statutory time limitation and a state statute of SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 6 (0) 1947A repose), rev'd on other grounds, 573 U.S. , 134 S. Ct. 2175 (2014); In re Countrywide Fin. | 1 | 1 |
CTS Corp. v. Waldburgergreen2 sentences2014See, e.g., Waldburger v. CTS Corp., 723 F.3d 434, 438, 442-44 (4th Cir. 2013) (employing the preemption doctrine to resolve a conflict between a federal statutory time limitation and a state statute of SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 6 (0) 1947A repose), rev'd on other grounds, 573 U.S. , 134 S. Ct. 2175 (2014); In re Countrywide Fin. 2014See, e.g., Waldburger v. CTS Corp., 723 F.3d 434, 438, 442-44 (4th Cir. 2013) (employing the preemption doctrine to resolve a conflict between a federal statutory time limitation and a state statute of SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 6 (0) 1947A repose), rev'd on other grounds, 573 U.S. , 134 S. Ct. 2175 (2014); In re Countrywide Fin. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Nevada. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
PACIFICARE OF NEVADA, INC. v. Rogers
green
2 sentences2014"When a federal act contains an express preemption provision, this court's primary task is to 'identify the domain expressly pre-empted by that language." Rogers, 127 Nev. at SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 6 (0) I947A 266 P.3d at 600 (quoting Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, 518 U.S. 470, 484 (1996)). 2014"When a federal act contains an express preemption provision, this court's primary task is to 'identify the domain expressly pre-empted by that language." Rogers, 127 Nev. at , SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 6 (0) 1947A ce 266 P.3d at 600 (quoting Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, 518 U.S. 470, 484 (1996)). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Hogoboom v. Superior Court
green
1 sentence2000Id. at 260 . | 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.