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.
10 Rhode Island opinions name it 2 courts 1945–2015 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Rhode Island 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hillsborough County v. Automated Medical Laboratories, Inc.green2 sentences2015“In analyzing a claim under the supremacy clause, it is axiomatic that the supremacy clause is relevant only when there is impermissible state interference with federal law.” In re Petition of Almond, 603 A.2d at 1090 (citing Hillsborough County v. Automated Medical Laboratories, Inc., 471 U.S. 707, 712 , 105 S.Ct. 2371 , 85 L.Ed.2d 714 (1985)). 2015“In analyzing a claim under the supremacy clause, it is axiomatic that the supremacy clause is relevant only when there is impermissible state interference with federal law.” In re Petition of Almond, 603 A.2d at 1090 (citing Hillsborough County v. Automated Medical Laboratories, Inc., 471 U.S. 707, 712 , 105 S.Ct. 2371 , 85 L.Ed.2d 714 (1985)). | 2 | 2 |
Matter of Schiffgreen1 sentence2015See, e.g., In the Matter of Schiff, 677 A.2d 422, 423, 425 (R.I.1996) (suspending attorney from the practice of law for eighteen months for her violation of the Supreme Court Rules of Professional Conduct after she submitted a materially false affidavit to the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island); In re Petition of Almond, 603 A.2d at 1087, 1090 (denying a federal prosecutor’s petition for waiver of Article V, Rule 3.8 of the Supreme Court Rules of Professional Conduct, which had been based on his contention that the rule conflicted with federal rules and standards an | 1 | 1 |
Petition of Almondgreen2 sentences2015See, e.g., In the Matter of Schiff, 677 A.2d 422, 423, 425 (R.I.1996) (suspending attorney from the practice of law for eighteen months for her violation of the Supreme Court Rules of Professional Conduct after she submitted a materially false affidavit to the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island); In re Petition of Almond, 603 A.2d at 1087, 1090 (denying a federal prosecutor’s petition for waiver of Article V, Rule 3.8 of the Supreme Court Rules of Professional Conduct, which had been based on his contention that the rule conflicted with federal rules and standards an 2015“In analyzing a claim under the supremacy clause, it is axiomatic that the supremacy clause is relevant only when there is impermissible state interference with federal law.” In re Petition of Almond, 603 A.2d at 1090 (citing Hillsborough County v. Automated Medical Laboratories, Inc., 471 U.S. 707, 712 , 105 S.Ct. 2371 , 85 L.Ed.2d 714 (1985)). | 1 | 1 |
Texaco Inc., a Corporation v. The Liberty National Bank & Trust Company of Oklahoma City, Public Leasing Corporation, Interpleadedgreen1 sentence1996Texaco, Inc. v. Liberty National Bank & Trust Co. of Oklahoma City, 464 F.2d 389, 392 (10th Cir.1972). | 1 | 1 |
Bellanca v. New York State Liquor Authoritygreen1 sentence1995Id. at 174. | 1 | 1 |
Hisquierdo v. Hisquierdogreen2 sentences1990See Hisquierdo v. Hisquierdo, 439 U.S. 572 , 99 S.Ct. 802 , 59 L.Ed.2d 1 (1979) (the California Supreme Court was required to exempt Railroad Retirement Act benefits from division despite California law to the contrary). 1990See Hisquierdo v. Hisquierdo, 439 U.S. 572 , 99 S.Ct. 802 , 59 L.Ed.2d 1 (1979) (the California Supreme Court was required to exempt Railroad Retirement Act benefits from division despite California law to the contrary). | 1 | 1 |
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation v. RA Gray & Co.green2 sentences1985After observing that the regulation of cable-television transmissions was preempted by a comprehensive federal scheme (the authority for which derives from the commerce clause), the Court, after weighing both state and federal powers, found that the statute was barred by the supremacy clause because the state regulation squarely conflicted with the execution of federal law and the state's central power under the Twenty-first Amendment was not directly implicated. 467 U.S. at ___, 104 S.Ct. at 2709, 81 L.Ed.2d at 600 . 1985After observing that the regulation of cable-television transmissions was preempted by a comprehensive federal scheme (the authority for which derives from the commerce clause), the Court, after weighing both state and federal powers, found that the statute was barred by the supremacy clause because the state regulation squarely conflicted with the execution of federal law and the state’s central power under the Twenty-first Amendment was not directly implicated. 467 U.S. at -, 104 S.Ct. at 2709, 81 L.Ed.2d at 600 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Rhode Island. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Capital Cities Cable, Inc. v. Crisp
green
2 sentences1985After observing that the regulation of cable-television transmissions was preempted by a comprehensive federal scheme (the authority for which derives from the commerce clause), the Court, after weighing both state and federal powers, found that the statute was barred by the supremacy clause because the state regulation squarely conflicted with the execution of federal law and the state's central power under the Twenty-first Amendment was not directly implicated. 467 U.S. at ___, 104 S.Ct. at 2709, 81 L.Ed.2d at 600 . 1985After observing that the regulation of cable-television transmissions was preempted by a comprehensive federal scheme (the authority for which derives from the commerce clause), the Court, after weighing both state and federal powers, found that the statute was barred by the supremacy clause because the state regulation squarely conflicted with the execution of federal law and the state’s central power under the Twenty-first Amendment was not directly implicated. 467 U.S. at -, 104 S.Ct. at 2709, 81 L.Ed.2d at 600 . | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Bowerman v. O'CONNOR
green
2 sentences1978Additionally, we have held in Bowerman v. O’Connor, 104 R.I. 519 , 247 A.2d 82 (1968), that the language of article I, section 3 of the Rhode Island Constitution is no more restrictive as to religious freedoms than the language of the Federal Constitution. 1978Additionally, we have held in Bowerman v. O’Connor, 104 R.I. 519 , 247 A.2d 82 (1968), that the language of article I, section 3 of the Rhode Island Constitution is no more restrictive as to religious freedoms than the language of the Federal Constitution. | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Brown v. Sharkey
green
2 sentences1977VI, cl. 2, which states: “This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof * * * shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.” As pointed out above, extradition is constitutionally mandated, and, as we said in Brown v. Sharkey, supra at 716 , 263 A.2d at 106 : “It -is the constitutional duty of an asylum state to enforce the Constitution’s interstate rendition clause faithfully.” Thus, even if we assume that the immunity 1977VI, cl. 2, which states: “This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof * * * shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.” As pointed out above, extradition is constitutionally mandated, and, as we said in Brown v. Sharkey, supra at 716 , 263 A.2d at 106 : “It -is the constitutional duty of an asylum state to enforce the Constitution’s interstate rendition clause faithfully.” Thus, even if we assume that the immunity | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Testa v. Katt
green
1 sentence1954Testa v. Katt, 330 U. S. 386 . | 1 | 1954–1954 |
Claflin v. Houseman
green
1 sentence1945Plaintiff cites, in support of those contentions, Claflin v. Houseman, 93 U. S. 130 , and more particularly what was said by the court in that case at page 136. | 1 | 1945–1945 |
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.