federal preemption doctrine (Texas) · Go Syfert
← Texas issues

federal preemption doctrine in Texas

13 Texas opinions name it 1 courts 1981–2025 4 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Texas 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.

Followed or applied (10)

CaseFollowedCited
Sikkelee Ex Rel. Estate of Sikkelee v. Precision Airmotive Corp.green
ca3 · 2016 · cited in 2 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2025–2025
2 sentences

2025This appeal merits close attention, as it involves both a death during an encounter with law enforcement as well as important questions implicating our jurisdiction and the federal preemption doctrine, “a necessary but precarious component of our system of federalism.” Sikkelee v. Precision Airmotive Corp., 822 F.3d 680, 687 (3d Cir. 2016).

2025This appeal merits close attention, as it involves both a death during an encounter with law enforcement as well as important questions implicating our jurisdiction and the federal preemption doctrine, “a necessary but precarious component of our system of federalism.” Sikkelee v. Precision Airmotive Corp., 822 F.3d 680, 687 (3d Cir. 2016).

22
Whitten v. Vehicle Removal Corp.green
texapp · 2001 · cited in 2 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2003–2003
2 sentences

2003See Whitten v. Vehicle Removal Carp., 56 S.W.3d 293, 298 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2001, pet. denied) (citing Gorman v. Life Ins.

2003See Whitten v. Vehicle Removal Corp. , 56 S.W.3d 293, 298 (Tex. App.- Dallas 2001, pet. denied) (citing Gorman v. Life Ins.

22
Hicks v. Lamar Consolidated Independent School Districtgreen
texapp · 1997 · cited in 2 Texas opinions naming this issue, 1997–1997
2 sentences

1997In Hicks v. Lamar Consolidated Independent School District, 943 S.W.2d 540, 543 (Tex.App.—Eastland 1997, no writ), the Eastland court confronted this precise argument; it determined that resolution of the issue lies in the doctrine of federal preemption.

1997In Hicks v. Lamar Consolidated Independent School District, 943 S.W.2d 540, 543 (Tex.App.—Eastland 1997, no writ), the Eastland court confronted this precise argument; it determined that resolution of the issue lies in the doctrine of federal preemption.

22
Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. Blackgreen
tex · 2003 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2024–2024
1 sentence

2024For it is well-established that if a state law is preempted by federal law, it is “without effect.” See Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. Black, 116 S.W.3d 745, 748 (Tex. 2003) (citing Maryland v. Louisiana, 451 U.S. 725, 746 (1981) (holding that under the “constitutional command” of the Supremacy Clause, “all conflicting state provisions [are] without effect”)); see also BIC Pen Corp. v. Carter, 346 S.W.3d 533, 537 (Tex. 2011) (“A state law that conflicts with federal law is preempted and has no effect.”).

11
De Canas v. Bicared
scotus · 1976 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2024–2024
1 sentence

2024Accordingly, I turn to the merits of Burciaga’s claim. (3) The doctrine of federal preemption in the immigration context There are three broad categories in which a state law may be preempted by federal law in the immigration context: “(1) if it regulates immigration—i.e., if it is essentially a determination of who should or should not be admitted into the country; (2) if the clear and manifest purpose of Congress was to oust state power in the area of regulation (referred to as field-preemption); or (3) if it is an obstacle to the accomplishment of the purposes of Congress (referred to as co

11
BIC Pen Corp. v. Carter Ex Rel. Cartergreen
tex · 2011 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2024–2024
1 sentence

2024For it is well-established that if a state law is preempted by federal law, it is “without effect.” See Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. Black, 116 S.W.3d 745, 748 (Tex. 2003) (citing Maryland v. Louisiana, 451 U.S. 725, 746 (1981) (holding that under the “constitutional command” of the Supremacy Clause, “all conflicting state provisions [are] without effect”)); see also BIC Pen Corp. v. Carter, 346 S.W.3d 533, 537 (Tex. 2011) (“A state law that conflicts with federal law is preempted and has no effect.”).

11
Maryland v. Louisianagreen
scotus · 1981 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2024–2024
1 sentence

2024For it is well-established that if a state law is preempted by federal law, it is “without effect.” See Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. Black, 116 S.W.3d 745, 748 (Tex. 2003) (citing Maryland v. Louisiana, 451 U.S. 725, 746 (1981) (holding that under the “constitutional command” of the Supremacy Clause, “all conflicting state provisions [are] without effect”)); see also BIC Pen Corp. v. Carter, 346 S.W.3d 533, 537 (Tex. 2011) (“A state law that conflicts with federal law is preempted and has no effect.”).

11
Stier v. Reading & Bates Corp.green
tex · 1999 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2022–2022
1 sentence

2022See generally Stier v. Reading & Bates Corp., 992 S.W.2d 423 (Tex. 1999).

11
General Atomic Co. v. Feltergreen
scotus · 1978 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008
1 sentence

2008See Gen. 8 Atomic Co. v. Felter, 436 U.S. 493, 496 (1978).

11
Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust for Southern Cal.red
scotus · 1983 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 1989–1989
2 sentences

1989See Franchise Tax Board v. Construction Laborers’ Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 13-14 , 103 S.Ct. 2841, 2848 , 77 L.Ed.2d 420 (1983).

1989See Franchise Tax Board v. Construction Laborers’ Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 13-14 , 103 S.Ct. 2841, 2848 , 77 L.Ed.2d 420 (1983).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (4)

CaseCitedYears
Perry, Ex Parte James Richard "Rick" green
texcrimapp · 2016
1 sentence

2024Id. at 895–96. 7 I believe that Burciaga’s claim is consistent with Perry, in that if he proves his State prosecution is barred by the doctrine of federal preemption, he has the right to avoid the trial at hand.

12024–2024
International Longshoremen's Ass'n v. Davis green
scotus · 1986
2 sentences

1990International Longshoremens’ Ass’n v. Davis, 476 U.S. 380, 391-02 , 106 S.Ct. 1904, 1912-18 , 90 L.Ed.2d 389 (1986).

1990International Longshoremens’ Ass’n v. Davis, 476 U.S. 380, 391-02 , 106 S.Ct. 1904, 1912-18 , 90 L.Ed.2d 389 (1986).

11990–1990
McCarty v. McCarty red
scotus · 1981
2 sentences

1989Mansell held that although the Act had been passed to modify the federal preemption rule set forth in McCarty v. McCarty, 453 U.S. 210 , 101 S.Ct. 2728 , 69 L.Ed.2d 589 (1981), it nevertheless did not restore authority to the States to determine questions of divisibility as to all types of military retirement pay.

1989Mansell held that although the Act had been passed to modify the federal preemption rule set forth in McCarty v. McCarty, 453 U.S. 210 , 101 S.Ct. 2728 , 69 L.Ed.2d 589 (1981), it nevertheless did not restore authority to the States to determine questions of divisibility as to all types of military retirement pay.

11989–1989
Ridgway v. Ridgway green
scotus · 1981
2 sentences

1981An even more recent case, Ridgway v. Ridgway, - U.S. -, 102 S.Ct. 49 , 70 L.Ed.2d 39 (1981), discusses the federal preemption doctrine forming the base of the decisions in Hisquierdo and McCarty , both supra. In Ridgway , the provisions of the Servicemen’s Group Life Insurance Act [ 38 U.S.C.A. § 765 , et seq. (1979)] relating to the change of beneficiaries of a policy of life insurance prevailed over an inconsistent state court decision affecting the policy.

1981An even more recent case, Ridgway v. Ridgway, - U.S. -, 102 S.Ct. 49 , 70 L.Ed.2d 39 (1981), discusses the federal preemption doctrine forming the base of the decisions in Hisquierdo and McCarty , both supra. In Ridgway , the provisions of the Servicemen’s Group Life Insurance Act [ 38 U.S.C.A. § 765 , et seq. (1979)] relating to the change of beneficiaries of a policy of life insurance prevailed over an inconsistent state court decision affecting the policy.

11981–1981

Statutes the citing opinions construe

USC § 8u.s.c.1324a (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

CA 25 (1961–2021) NY 19 (2000–2026) TX 13 (1981–2025) CT 9 (1983–2022) PA 9 (1967–2025) OH 8 (1998–2025) IA 7 (1999–2019) MT 6 (1986–2016) IL 6 (1967–2025) IN 6 (2010–2020) AZ 5 (1961–2010) MS 5 (1973–2011) KS 5 (1984–2018) WV 5 (1973–2014) NM 4 (1976–2008) NJ 4 (1977–1999) WI 4 (1975–2023) FL 4 (1972–2005) MI 4 (1979–2020) NC 3 (2018–2020) AL 3 (1959–2014) MD 3 (2007–2016) WY 3 (1981–1985) NH 3 (2014–2016) LA 3 (2013–2017) VA 3 (1972–2026) OK 3 (1992–2014) WA 2 (1971–1982) KY 2 (1984–2012) HI 2 (2016–2016) SD 2 (1978–1984) CO 2 (1975–1976) ME 2 (2021–2025) SC 2 (2005–2010) AK 2 (1989–1989)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check