11 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1994–2020 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Indiana 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 |
|---|---|---|
cluster 660303green2 sentences1994See Myrick v. Freuhauf Corp. (11th Cir.1994), 13 F.3d 1516, 1189 (Hill, S.J., dissenting). 1994See Myrick v. Freuhauf Corp. (11th Cir.1994), 13 F.3d 1516 , 1189 (Hill, S.J., dissenting). | 2 | 2 |
Puerto Rico v. Franklin California Tax-Free Trustgreen2 sentences2020It also meant there was no presumption against preemption. “[B]ecause the statute contains an express preemption clause, we do not invoke any presumption against pre-emption but instead focus on the plain wording of the clause, which necessarily contains the best evidence of Congress’ pre-emptive intent.” Id. (cleaned up). 2019But the United States Supreme Court has made it clear that when a statute includes an express preemption clause, “we do not invoke any presumption against pre-emption but instead ‘focus on the plain wording of the clause, which necessarily contains the best evidence of Congress’ pre-emptive intent.’” Puerto Rico v. Franklin Cal. Tax- Free Trust, 136 S.Ct. 1938, 1946 (2016) (quoting Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting, 563 U.S. 582, 594 (2011)). [37] Here, as noted above, Medicare Part C includes an express preemption clause. | 1 | 2 |
CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Easterwoodgreen2 sentences2017When a statute contains an express preemption clause, “the task of statutory construction must in the first instance focus on the plain' wording of the clause, which necessarily contains the best evidence of Congress’ preemptive intent.” CSX Transp., Inc. v. Easterwood, 507 U.S. 658, 664 , 113 S.Ct. 1732 , 123 L.Ed.2d 387 (1993). 2017When a statute contains an express preemption clause, “the task of statutory construction must in the first instance focus on the plain' wording of the clause, which necessarily contains the best evidence of Congress’ preemptive intent.” CSX Transp., Inc. v. Easterwood, 507 U.S. 658, 664 , 113 S.Ct. 1732 , 123 L.Ed.2d 387 (1993). | 1 | 2 |
Marriage of Basileh v. Alghusaingreen2 sentences2016Basileh v. Alghusain, 912 N.E.2d 814, 818 (Ind.2009). 2016Basileh v. Alghusain, 912 N.E.2d 814, 818 (Ind. 2009). | 1 | 2 |
Chamber of Commerce of United States of America v. Whitinggreen1 sentence2019But the United States Supreme Court has made it clear that when a statute includes an express preemption clause, “we do not invoke any presumption against pre-emption but instead ‘focus on the plain wording of the clause, which necessarily contains the best evidence of Congress’ pre-emptive intent.’” Puerto Rico v. Franklin Cal. Tax- Free Trust, 136 S.Ct. 1938, 1946 (2016) (quoting Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting, 563 U.S. 582, 594 (2011)). [37] Here, as noted above, Medicare Part C includes an express preemption clause. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc.
green
2 sentences2000In the apólleme analysis we consider whether the legal duty that is the predicate of the Eblings’ design defect claim constitutes a “requirement! ] for labeling or packaging in addition to or different from” the EPA regulations. 7 U.S.C. § 136v(b); Cipollone, 505 U.S. at 524 , 112 S.Ct. at 2621 . 2000In the apólleme analysis we consider whether the legal duty that is the predicate of the Eblings’ design defect claim constitutes a “requirement! ] for labeling or packaging in addition to or different from” the EPA regulations. 7 U.S.C. § 136v(b); Cipollone, 505 U.S. at 524 , 112 S.Ct. at 2621 . | 3 | 1994–2000 |
Gills v. Ford Motor Co.
green
2 sentences1994As recently recognized in Gills v. Ford Motor Co. (W.D.Ky.1993), 829 F.Supp. 894 , the Supreme Court’s preemption discussion in Cipollone broke no new ground: “[i]t had long been the law that ‘[a] preemption question requires an examination of congressional intent,’ and the presence of an express preemption clause declaring the boundaries of Congress’s preemptive intent would naturally leave courts less room to proceed to an implied preemption analysis. 1994As recently recognized in Gills v. Ford Motor Co. (W.D.Ky. 1993), 829 F. Supp. 894 , the Supreme Court's preemption discussion in Cipollone broke no new ground: "[i]t had long been the law that `[a] preemption question requires an examination of congressional intent,' and the presence of an express preemption clause declaring the boundaries of Congress's preemptive intent would naturally leave courts less room to proceed to an implied preemption analysis. | 2 | 1994–1994 |
Beck's Superior Hybrids, Inc. v. Monsanto Co. & Monsanto Technology LLC
green
2 sentences2016Id. 49 U.S.C. § 14705 (a) provides: “A carrier providing transportation or service subject to jurisdiction under chapter 135 must begin a civil action to recover charges for transportation or service provided by the carrier within 18 months after the claim accrues.” The best evidence of preemptive intent is an express preemption clause. 2016Id. [8] 49 U.S.C. § 14705 (a) provides: “A carrier providing transportation or service subject to jurisdiction under chapter 135 must begin a civil action to recover charges for transportation or service provided by the carrier within 18 months after the claim accrues.” The best evidence of preemptive intent is an express preemption clause. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
In the Matter of Jones
green
1 sentence2004An example of an express preemption clause can be found in Rogers, 737 N.E.2d 1158 . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr
green
2 sentences2001Medtronic, 518 U.S. at 485 , 116 S.Ct. at 2250 , 135 L.Ed.2d at 715 . 2001Medtronic, 518 U.S. at 485 , 116 S.Ct. at 2250 , 135 L.Ed.2d at 715 . | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Freightliner Corp. v. Myrick
green
1 sentence1996See, eg., CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Easterwood, 507 U.S. 658, 673, n. 12 , 113 S.Ct. 1732 , 1742 n. 12, 123 L.Ed.2d 387 (1993) ("We reject petitioner's claim of implied 'conflict' pre-emption ... on the basis of the preceding analysis.") At best, Cipolione supports an inference that an express preemption clause forecloses implied pre-emption; it does not establish a rule. --- U.S. at --, 115 S.Ct. at 1488 . | 1 | 1996–1996 |
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.