federal preemption doctrine in Connecticut

2022The trial court properly decided that there was substantial evidence to support the commissioner’s determination that the plaintiff charged an illegal fee for the release of the vehicle and that the commissioner’s decision was not contrary to law: it was undisputed that the plaintiff performed a nonconsensual tow when it transported the disabled vehicle from the scene of the accident to its place of business because the tow was performed at the request of a police officer, and the agreement to provide a more expeditious retrieval of the vehicle from the plaintiff’s storage yard did not transfo

2012The sovereign immunity claim is raised by the state defendants. [7] See Connecticut Associated Builders & Contractors v. Hartford, supra, 251 Conn. at 176 , 740 A.2d 813 (describing PLA in that case as prehire agreement signed by construction manager, local unions and contractors for purpose of enhancing timely completion of project without interruption or delay through establishment of framework for labor-management cooperation and stability, with terms remaining in full force and effect throughout project, contractors agreeing to abide by collective bargaining agreements of trade unions, inc

2012The sovereign immunity claim is raised by the state defendants. [7] See Connecticut Associated Builders & Contractors v. Hartford, supra, 251 Conn. at 176 , 740 A.2d 813 (describing PLA in that case as prehire agreement signed by construction manager, local unions and contractors for purpose of enhancing timely completion of project without interruption or delay through establishment of framework for labor-management cooperation and stability, with terms remaining in full force and effect throughout project, contractors agreeing to abide by collective bargaining agreements of trade unions, inc

2012The sovereign immunity claim is raised by the state defendants. [7] See Connecticut Associated Builders & Contractors v. Hartford, supra, 251 Conn. at 176 , 740 A.2d 813 (describing PLA in that case as prehire agreement signed by construction manager, local unions and contractors for purpose of enhancing timely completion of project without interruption or delay through establishment of framework for labor-management cooperation and stability, with terms remaining in full force and effect throughout project, contractors agreeing to abide by collective bargaining agreements of trade unions, inc

2012The sovereign immunity claim is raised by the state defendants. [7] See Connecticut Associated Builders & Contractors v. Hartford, supra, 251 Conn. at 176 , 740 A.2d 813 (describing PLA in that case as prehire agreement signed by construction manager, local unions and contractors for purpose of enhancing timely completion of project without interruption or delay through establishment of framework for labor-management cooperation and stability, with terms remaining in full force and effect throughout project, contractors agreeing to abide by collective bargaining agreements of trade unions, inc

2007Nevertheless, we agree with the defendants that these cases provide support for the proposition that, when a state has enacted statutes implementing the public policy underlying the federal act and a state agency is charged with administering those statutes and that policy, the agency has jurisdiction “to review [such agreements] to ensure that they are fair to the parties to the contract and that they further the energy policies of the [s]tate as defined by the [legislature.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Panda-Kathleen, L.P. v. Clark, supra, 326 ; see also In re Covanta Energy Group, s

2001The Rini court said: "Our conclusion is consistent with the view taken by the Second Circuit in Cleveland v. Beltman North American Company, 30 F.3d 373 (2d Cir. 1994), cert. denied ___ U.S. ___ , 115 S.Ct. 901 , 130 L.Ed.2d 785 (1995).

2001The Rini court said: "Our conclusion is consistent with the view taken by the Second Circuit in Cleveland v. Beltman North American Company, 30 F.3d 373 (2d Cir. 1994), cert. denied ___ U.S. ___ , 115 S.Ct. 901 , 130 L.Ed.2d 785 (1995).

2001The Rini court said: "Our conclusion is consistent with the view taken by the Second Circuit in Cleveland v. Beltman North American Company, 30 F.3d 373 (2d Cir. 1994), cert. denied ___ U.S. ___ , 115 S.Ct. 901 , 130 L.Ed.2d 785 (1995).

1998Thus, it is clear that "Congress intended that only the Federal Government should regulate the radiological safety aspects involved in the construction and operation of a nuclear plant." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) English v. General Electric Co. , 496 U.S. 72 , 82 , 110 S.Ct. 2270 . 110 L.Ed.2d 65 (1990); see also Silkwood v. Kerr-McGee Corp. , 464 U.S. 238 , 260 , 104 S.Ct. 615 , 78 L.Ed.2d 443 (1984) ("[T]he fundamental teaching of Pacific Gas is that state regulation of nuclear power is pre-empted to the extent that its purpose is to regulate safety."); Norris v. Lumbermen's Mutual

1998Thus, it is clear that "Congress intended that only the Federal Government should regulate the radiological safety aspects involved in the construction and operation of a nuclear plant." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) English v. General Electric Co. , 496 U.S. 72 , 82 , 110 S.Ct. 2270 . 110 L.Ed.2d 65 (1990); see also Silkwood v. Kerr-McGee Corp. , 464 U.S. 238 , 260 , 104 S.Ct. 615 , 78 L.Ed.2d 443 (1984) ("[T]he fundamental teaching of Pacific Gas is that state regulation of nuclear power is pre-empted to the extent that its purpose is to regulate safety."); Norris v. Lumbermen's Mutual

1998Rather, the § 16-13 hearing is a forum at which information may be presented to DPUC concerning dangerous conditions of a public utility plant which may jeopardize public and employee health and safety." (Plaintiff's Memorandum, p. 6.) The CRC also argues that the federal government "does not in actuality occupy the field of regulation of the Millstone Nuclear Power Station exclusively" and therefore; the federal preemption doctrine is not a bar to the conduct of the mandatory statutory hearing pursuant to § 16-13 ." (Plaintiff's Memorandum, p. 12.) The United States Supreme Court has expressl

1998Rather, the § 16-13 hearing is a forum at which information may be presented to DPUC concerning dangerous conditions of a public utility plant which may jeopardize public and employee health and safety." (Plaintiff's Memorandum, p. 6.) The CRC also argues that the federal government "does not in actuality occupy the field of regulation of the Millstone Nuclear Power Station exclusively" and therefore; the federal preemption doctrine is not a bar to the conduct of the mandatory statutory hearing pursuant to § 16-13 ." (Plaintiff's Memorandum, p. 12.) The United States Supreme Court has expressl

1996App. § 41713 of Chapter 417 states in relevant part at subsection (b)(2): "A state . . . .may not enact or enforce a law, regulation or other provision having the force and effect of law related to a price, route, or service of an air carrier that may provide air transportation under this support." The defendant makes a federal preemption claim on all the counts it is challenging and has relied on two United States Supreme Court cases, Morales v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 504 U.S. 374 (1992) and American Airlines v. Wolars, 115 S.Ct. 817 , 130 L.Ed.2d 715 (1995).

1996App. § 41713 of Chapter 417 states in relevant part at subsection (b)(2): "A state . . . .may not enact or enforce a law, regulation or other provision having the force and effect of law related to a price, route, or service of an air carrier that may provide air transportation under this support." The defendant makes a federal preemption claim on all the counts it is challenging and has relied on two United States Supreme Court cases, Morales v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 504 U.S. 374 (1992) and American Airlines v. Wolars, 115 S.Ct. 817 , 130 L.Ed.2d 715 (1995).

1996App. § 41713 of Chapter 417 states in relevant part at subsection (b)(2): "A state . . . .may not enact or enforce a law, regulation or other provision having the force and effect of law related to a price, route, or service of an air carrier that may provide air transportation under this support." The defendant makes a federal preemption claim on all the counts it is challenging and has relied on two United States Supreme Court cases, Morales v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 504 U.S. 374 (1992) and American Airlines v. Wolars, 115 S.Ct. 817 , 130 L.Ed.2d 715 (1995).