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.
11 California opinions name it 2 courts 2015–2025 6 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California 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 |
|---|---|---|
Quesada v. Herb Thyme Farms, Inc.green2 sentences2025(Felder v. Casey (1988) 487 U.S. 131, 138 [Wisconsin’s notice-of-claim statute did not apply to civil rights actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 brought in state court because the statute was preempted as inconsistent with federal law].) “Preemption is foremost a question of congressional intent: did Congress, expressly or implicitly, seek to displace state law?” (Quesada v. Herb Thyme Farms, Inc. (2015) 62 Cal.4th 298, 308 .) “Congress may expressly preempt state law through an explicit preemption clause, or courts may imply preemption under the field, conflict, or obstacle preemption doctrines.” 2021Preemption Principles “‘“The supremacy clause of the United States Constitution establishes a constitutional choice-of-law rule, makes federal law paramount, and vests Congress with the power to preempt state law.” [Citations.] Similarly, federal agencies, acting pursuant to authorization from Congress, can issue regulations that override state requirements. [Citations.] Preemption is foremost a question of congressional intent: did Congress, expressly or implicitly, seek to displace state law?’” (Solus Industrial Innovations, LLC v. Superior Court (2018) 4 Cal.5th 316, 331 (Solus); accord, Qu | 2 | 9 |
Solus Indus. Innovations, LLC v. Superior Court of Orange Cnty.green2 sentences2025Congress may expressly preempt state law through an explicit preemption clause, or courts may imply preemption under the field, conflict, or obstacle preemption doctrines.’ [Citation.] Implied preemption, for its part, may be found ‘(i) when it is clear that Congress intended, by comprehensive legislation, to occupy the entire field of regulation, leaving no room for the states to supplement federal law [citation]; (ii) when compliance with both federal and state regulations is an impossibility [citation]; or (iii) when state law “stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of th 2021Preemption Principles “‘“The supremacy clause of the United States Constitution establishes a constitutional choice-of-law rule, makes federal law paramount, and vests Congress with the power to preempt state law.” [Citations.] Similarly, federal agencies, acting pursuant to authorization from Congress, can issue regulations that override state requirements. [Citations.] Preemption is foremost a question of congressional intent: did Congress, expressly or implicitly, seek to displace state law?’” (Solus Industrial Innovations, LLC v. Superior Court (2018) 4 Cal.5th 316, 331 (Solus); accord, Qu | 1 | 3 |
Felder v. Caseygreen1 sentence2025(Felder v. Casey (1988) 487 U.S. 131, 138 [Wisconsin’s notice-of-claim statute did not apply to civil rights actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 brought in state court because the statute was preempted as inconsistent with federal law].) “Preemption is foremost a question of congressional intent: did Congress, expressly or implicitly, seek to displace state law?” (Quesada v. Herb Thyme Farms, Inc. (2015) 62 Cal.4th 298, 308 .) “Congress may expressly preempt state law through an explicit preemption clause, or courts may imply preemption under the field, conflict, or obstacle preemption doctrines.” | 1 | 1 |
Parks v. MBNA America Bankgreen1 sentence2021Preemption Principles “‘“The supremacy clause of the United States Constitution establishes a constitutional choice-of-law rule, makes federal law paramount, and vests Congress with the power to preempt state law.” [Citations.] Similarly, federal agencies, acting pursuant to authorization from Congress, can issue regulations that override state requirements. [Citations.] Preemption is foremost a question of congressional intent: did Congress, expressly or implicitly, seek to displace state law?’” (Solus Industrial Innovations, LLC v. Superior Court (2018) 4 Cal.5th 316, 331 (Solus); accord, Qu | 1 | 1 |
Coyne v. City and County of San Franciscogreen1 sentence2021Ultimately, ‘what constitutes a “sufficient obstacle [for a finding of implied preemption] is a matter of judgment, to be informed by examining the federal statute as a whole and identifying its purpose and intended effects.” ’ ” (Quesada v. Herb Thyme Farms, Inc. (2015) 62 Cal.4th 298, 312 .)10 We review questions of statutory interpretation and preemption de novo, following traditional principles of statutory interpretation (Coyne v. City and County of San Francisco (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 1215, 1224 [preemption]; Hardesty v. Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management Dist. (2011) 202 Cal.A | 1 | 1 |
Hardesty v. Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management Districtgreen1 sentence2021Ultimately, ‘what constitutes a “sufficient obstacle [for a finding of implied preemption] is a matter of judgment, to be informed by examining the federal statute as a whole and identifying its purpose and intended effects.” ’ ” (Quesada v. Herb Thyme Farms, Inc. (2015) 62 Cal.4th 298, 312 .)10 We review questions of statutory interpretation and preemption de novo, following traditional principles of statutory interpretation (Coyne v. City and County of San Francisco (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 1215, 1224 [preemption]; Hardesty v. Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management Dist. (2011) 202 Cal.A | 1 | 1 |
Reid v. GOOGLE, INC.green2 sentences2018Congress may expressly preempt state law through an explicit preemption clause, or courts may imply preemption under the field, conflict, or obstacle preemption doctrines." ( Quesada, supra , 62 Cal.4th at p. 308 , 195 Cal.Rptr.3d 505 , 361 P.3d 868 .) Implied preemption, for its part, may be found "(i) when it is clear that Congress intended, by comprehensive legislation, to occupy the entire field of regulation, leaving no room for the states to supplement federal law [citation]; (ii) when compliance with both federal and state regulations is an impossibility [citation]; or (iii) when state 2018Congress may expressly preempt state law through an explicit preemption clause, or courts may imply preemption under the field, conflict, or obstacle preemption doctrines." ( Quesada, supra , 62 Cal.4th at p. 308 , 195 Cal.Rptr.3d 505 , 361 P.3d 868 .) Implied preemption, for its part, may be found "(i) when it is clear that Congress intended, by comprehensive legislation, to occupy the entire field of regulation, leaving no room for the states to supplement federal law [citation]; (ii) when compliance with both federal and state regulations is an impossibility [citation]; or (iii) when state | 1 | 1 |
Farm Raised Salmon Casesgreen1 sentence2018Congress may expressly preempt state law through an explicit preemption clause, or courts may imply preemption under the field, conflict, or obstacle preemption doctrines." ( Quesada, supra , 62 Cal.4th at p. 308 , 195 Cal.Rptr.3d 505 , 361 P.3d 868 .) Implied preemption, for its part, may be found "(i) when it is clear that Congress intended, by comprehensive legislation, to occupy the entire field of regulation, leaving no room for the states to supplement federal law [citation]; (ii) when compliance with both federal and state regulations is an impossibility [citation]; or (iii) when state | 1 | 1 |
Brown v. Mortensengreen2 sentences2015(Brown v. Mortensen (2011) 51 Cal.4th 1052, 1059 [ 126 Cal.Rptr.3d 428 , 253 P.3d 522 ]; In re Jose C. (2009) 45 Cal.4th 534, 550 [ 87 Cal.Rptr.3d 674 , 198 P.3d 1087 ]; Viva! 2015(Brown v. Mortensen (2011) 51 Cal.4th 1052, 1059 [ 126 Cal.Rptr.3d 428 , 253 P.3d 522 ]; In re Jose C. (2009) 45 Cal.4th 534, 550 [ 87 Cal.Rptr.3d 674 , 198 P.3d 1087 ]; Viva! | 1 | 1 |
People v. Jose C.green2 sentences2015(Brown v. Mortensen (2011) 51 Cal.4th 1052, 1059 [ 126 Cal.Rptr.3d 428 , 253 P.3d 522 ]; In re Jose C. (2009) 45 Cal.4th 534, 550 [ 87 Cal.Rptr.3d 674 , 198 P.3d 1087 ]; Viva! 2015(Brown v. Mortensen (2011) 51 Cal.4th 1052, 1059 [ 126 Cal.Rptr.3d 428 , 253 P.3d 522 ]; In re Jose C. (2009) 45 Cal.4th 534, 550 [ 87 Cal.Rptr.3d 674 , 198 P.3d 1087 ]; Viva! | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Association Des Éleveurs De Canards Et D'Oies Du Québec v. Becerra
green
2 sentences2021“Where the federal statute contains an express preemption clause, we must determine the substance and scope of the clause. [Citation.] In so doing, we assume ‘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.] And finally, ‘when the text of a pre-emption clause is susceptible of more than one plausible reading, courts ordinarily “accept the reading that disfavors preemption.” ’ [Citation.]” (Ass’n des Eleveurs de Canards et d’Oies du Quebec v. Becerra (9th Cir. 2017) 870 F.3d 1140, 2021“Where the federal statute contains an express preemption clause, we must determine the substance and scope of the clause. [Citation.] In so doing, we assume ‘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.] And finally, ‘when the text of a pre-emption clause is susceptible of more than one plausible reading, courts ordinarily “accept the reading that disfavors preemption.” ’ [Citation.]” (Ass’n des Eleveurs de Canards et d’Oies du Quebec v. Becerra (9th Cir. 2017) 870 F.3d 1140, | 2 | 2021–2021 |
Bronco Wine Company v. Jolly
green
2 sentences2019A Preemption Generally “ ‘The supremacy clause of the United States Constitution establishes a constitutional choice-of-law rule, makes federal law paramount, and vests Congress with the power to preempt state law.’ ” (Quesada v. Herb Thyme Farms, Inc. (2015) 62 Cal.4th 298, 307-308 .) Congress may expressly preempt state law through an explicit preemption clause, or courts may imply preemption under three doctrines: (1) field preemption, when “Congress intended, by comprehensive legislation, to occupy the entire field of regulation, leaving no room for the states to supplement federal law”; ( 2018Congress may expressly preempt state law through an explicit preemption clause, or courts may imply preemption under the field, conflict, or obstacle preemption doctrines." ( Quesada, supra , 62 Cal.4th at p. 308 , 195 Cal.Rptr.3d 505 , 361 P.3d 868 .) Implied preemption, for its part, may be found "(i) when it is clear that Congress intended, by comprehensive legislation, to occupy the entire field of regulation, leaving no room for the states to supplement federal law [citation]; (ii) when compliance with both federal and state regulations is an impossibility [citation]; or (iii) when state | 2 | 2018–2019 |
California Aviation, Inc. v. Leeds
green
1 sentence2025Congress may expressly preempt state law through an explicit preemption clause, or courts may imply preemption under the field, conflict, or obstacle preemption doctrines.’ [Citation.] Implied preemption, for its part, may be found ‘(i) when it is clear that Congress intended, by comprehensive legislation, to occupy the entire field of regulation, leaving no room for the states to supplement federal law [citation]; (ii) when compliance with both federal and state regulations is an impossibility [citation]; or (iii) when state law “stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of th | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Gade v. National Solid Wastes Management Assn.
green
2 sentences2018Federal OSH Act preemption principles announced by the high court The United States Supreme Court examined the preemptive effect of the federal OSH Act in Gade , supra , 505 U.S. 88 , 112 S.Ct. 2374 . 2018Federal OSH Act preemption principles announced by the high court The United States Supreme Court examined the preemptive effect of the federal OSH Act in Gade , supra , 505 U.S. 88 , 112 S.Ct. 2374 . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Viva! International Voice for Animals v. Adidas Promotional Retail Operations, Inc.
green
2 sentences2018The burden is on ... the party asserting preemption[ ] to demonstrate [one of these species of preemption] applies." ( Quesada v. Herb Thyme Farms, Inc. (2015) 62 Cal.4th 298 , 307-308, 195 Cal.Rptr.3d 505 , 361 P.3d 868 ( Quesada ).) Appellants do not identify any explicit preemption clause, nor do they contend conflict preemption-present "when simultaneous compliance with *1215 both state and federal directives is impossible" ( *113 Viva!, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 936 , 63 Cal.Rptr.3d 50 , 162 P.3d 569 )-applies. 2018The burden is on ... the party asserting preemption[ ] to demonstrate [one of these species of preemption] applies." ( Quesada v. Herb Thyme Farms, Inc. (2015) 62 Cal.4th 298 , 307-308, 195 Cal.Rptr.3d 505 , 361 P.3d 868 ( Quesada ).) Appellants do not identify any explicit preemption clause, nor do they contend conflict preemption-present "when simultaneous compliance with *1215 both state and federal directives is impossible" ( *113 Viva!, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 936 , 63 Cal.Rptr.3d 50 , 162 P.3d 569 )-applies. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
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.