69 New Jersey opinions name it 2 courts 1971–2026 7 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New Jersey 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 |
|---|---|---|
Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohrgreen2 sentences2026Because "States are independent sovereigns in our federal system," Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, 518 U.S. 470, 485 (1996), however, "the preemption analysis begins with the 'assumption that the historic police powers of the States [are] not to be superseded by [a] [f]ederal [a]ct unless that was the clear and manifest purpose of Congress,'" Altice, 253 N.J. at 416 (alterations in original) (quoting Altria Grp., Inc. v. Good, 555 U.S. 70, 77 (2008)). 2026Because "States are independent sovereigns in our federal system," Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, 518 U.S. 470, 485 (1996), however, "the preemption analysis begins with the 'assumption that the historic police powers of the States [are] not to be superseded by [a] [f]ederal [a]ct unless that was the clear and manifest purpose of Congress,'" Altice, 253 N.J. at 416 (alterations in original) (quoting Altria Grp., Inc. v. Good, 555 U.S. 70, 77 (2008)). | 6 | 7 |
Hines v. Davidowitzgreen2 sentences2014"Preemption analysis begins with identifying the subject matter of the state law and determining whether . . . federal law [operates] in that field." Id. at 142 (citing Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52, 64-68 , 61 S. Ct. 399, 402-404 , 85 L. 2014"Preemption analysis begins with identifying the subject matter of the state law and determining whether . . . federal law [operates] in that field." Id. at 142 (citing Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52, 64-68 , 61 S. Ct. 399, 402-404 , 85 L. | 5 | 5 |
Feldman v. Lederle Laboratoriesgreen2 sentences2009As already noted, 8 U.S.C. § 1324a(h)(2) provides that "[t]he provisions of this section preempt any State or local law imposing civil or criminal sanctions (other than through licensing and similar laws) upon those who employ, or recruit or refer for a fee for employment, unauthorized aliens." "The preemption doctrine, rooted in the second clause, article VI of the United States Constitution, requires that when the mandates of federal law and *963 state law are not consistent, the state law must yield." Feldman v. Lederle Labs., 125 N.J. 117, 133 , 592 A. 2d 1176 (1991). 2009As already noted, 8 U.S.C. § 1324a(h)(2) provides that "[t]he provisions of this section preempt any State or local law imposing civil or criminal sanctions (other than through licensing and similar laws) upon those who employ, or recruit or refer for a fee for employment, unauthorized aliens." "The preemption doctrine, rooted in the second clause, article VI of the United States Constitution, requires that when the mandates of federal law and *963 state law are not consistent, the state law must yield." Feldman v. Lederle Labs., 125 N.J. 117, 133 , 592 A. 2d 1176 (1991). | 2 | 7 |
Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc.green2 sentences1995The preemption test has been most recently prescribed by the Supreme Court in Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 505 U.S. 504 , 112 S.Ct. 2608 , 120 L.Ed. 2d 407 (1992). 1995The preemption test has been most recently prescribed by the Supreme Court in Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 505 U.S. 504 , 112 S.Ct. 2608 , 120 L.Ed. 2d 407 (1992). | 2 | 6 |
Altria Group, Inc. v. Goodgreen2 sentences2026Because "States are independent sovereigns in our federal system," Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, 518 U.S. 470, 485 (1996), however, "the preemption analysis begins with the 'assumption that the historic police powers of the States [are] not to be superseded by [a] [f]ederal [a]ct unless that was the clear and manifest purpose of Congress,'" Altice, 253 N.J. at 416 (alterations in original) (quoting Altria Grp., Inc. v. Good, 555 U.S. 70, 77 (2008)). 2026Because "States are independent sovereigns in our federal system," Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, 518 U.S. 470, 485 (1996), however, "the preemption analysis begins with the 'assumption that the historic police powers of the States [are] not to be superseded by [a] [f]ederal [a]ct unless that was the clear and manifest purpose of Congress,'" Altice, 253 N.J. at 416 (alterations in original) (quoting Altria Grp., Inc. v. Good, 555 U.S. 70, 77 (2008)). | 2 | 2 |
Fort Halifax Packing Co. v. Coynegreen2 sentences2026For example, in the labor law context, the United States Supreme Court has long recognized, "the establishment of labor standards falls within the traditional police power of the state." Fort Halifax Packing Co. v. Coyne, 482 U.S. 1, 21 (1987). 2026For example, in the labor law context, the United States Supreme Court has long recognized "the establishment of labor standards falls within the traditional police power of the state." Fort Halifax Packing Co. v. Coyne, 482 U.S. 1, 21 (1987). | 2 | 2 |
In Re Reglan Litigationgreen2 sentences2025"Preemption determinations are reviewed de novo, as are the issues of statutory interpretation necessary to the preemption inquiry." In re Alleged Failure of Altice USA, Inc., 253 N.J. 406 , 415 (2023) (citing In re Reglan Litig., 226 N.J. 315, 327 (2016)). 2024"Preemption determinations are reviewed de novo, as are the issues of statutory interpretation necessary to the preemption inquiry." In re Alleged Failure of Altice USA, Inc., 253 N.J. 406 , 415 (2023) (citing In re Reglan Litig., 226 N.J. 315, 327 (2016)). | 2 | 2 |
Hillsborough County v. Automated Medical Laboratories, Inc.green2 sentences2016Labs., Inc., 471 U.S. 707, 715 , 105 S.Ct. 2371, 2376 , 85 L.Ed.2d 714, 722-23 (1985)). 2016Labs., Inc., 471 U.S. 707, 715 , 105 S.Ct. 2371, 2376 , 85 L.Ed.2d 714, 722-23 (1985)). | 2 | 2 |
Vaca v. Sipesgreen2 sentences1975See Amalgamated Ass'n of Street, etc., Employees v. Lockridge, supra, 403 U.S. at 297-298 , 91 S.Ct. 1909 , citing Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171 , 87 S.Ct. 903 , 17 L.Ed. 2d 842 (1967). 1975See Amalgamated Ass'n of Street, etc., Employees v. Lockridge, supra, 403 U.S. at 297-298 , 91 S.Ct. 1909 , citing Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171 , 87 S.Ct. 903 , 17 L.Ed. 2d 842 (1967). | 2 | 2 |
Amalgamated Ass'n of Street, Electric Railway & Motor Coach Employees of America v. Lockridgegreen2 sentences1975Plaintiff contends that defendants' conduct falls within one of the three exceptions to the preemption doctrine promulgated in Amalgamated Ass'n of Street, etc., Employees v. Lockridge, supra, 403 U.S. at 297 , 91 S.Ct. 1909 . 1975Plaintiff contends that defendants' conduct falls within one of the three exceptions to the preemption doctrine promulgated in Amalgamated Ass'n of Street, etc., Employees v. Lockridge, supra, 403 U.S. at 297 , 91 S.Ct. 1909 . | 2 | 2 |
Summer v. Township of Teaneckgreen2 sentences2015In a preemption analysis, the initial question is “whether the field or subject matter in which the ordinance operates, including its effects, is the same as that in which the State has *109 acted.” Ibid. 1991The ultimate question is whether, upon a survey of all the interests involved in the subject, it can be said *250 with confidence that the Legislature intended to immobilize the municipalities from dealing with local aspects otherwise within their power to act. [ 53 N.J. at 554-555 , 251 A. 2d 761 ] In Overlook Terrace Management Corp. v. Rent Control Bd. of West New York, 71 N.J. 451 , 366 A. 2d 321 (1976), the Supreme Court listed some of the pertinent questions to consider in evaluating the applicability of the preemption doctrine. | 1 | 5 |
Retail Clerks International Ass'n, Local 1625 v. Schermerhorngreen2 sentences2014"Preemption analysis begins with identifying the subject matter of the state law and determining whether . . . federal law [operates] in that field." Id. at 142 (citing Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52, 64-68 , 61 S. Ct. 399, 402-404 , 85 L. 2014"Preemption analysis begins with identifying the subject matter of the state law and determining whether . . . federal law [operates] in that field." Id. at 142 (citing Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52, 64-68 , 61 S. Ct. 399, 402-404 , 85 L. | 1 | 3 |
Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp.green2 sentences2016When Congress legislates in a field where states have traditionally exercised their “historic police powers,” the preemption inquiry begins with the “assumption” that Congress did not intend to supersede a state statute “unless that was [Congress’s] clear and manifest purpose.” Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, 518 U.S. 470, 485 , 116 S.Ct. 2240, 2250 , 135 L.Ed.2d 700, 715 (1996) (first quoting Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U.S. 218, 230 , 67 S.Ct. 1146, 1152 , 91 L.Ed. 1447, 1459 (1947); and then citing Hillsborough Cty. v. Automated Med. 2016When Congress legislates in a field where states have traditionally exercised their “historic police powers,” the preemption inquiry begins with the “assumption” that Congress did not intend to supersede a state statute “unless that was [Congress’s] clear and manifest purpose.” Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, 518 U.S. 470, 485 , 116 S.Ct. 2240, 2250 , 135 L.Ed.2d 700, 715 (1996) (first quoting Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U.S. 218, 230 , 67 S.Ct. 1146, 1152 , 91 L.Ed. 1447, 1459 (1947); and then citing Hillsborough Cty. v. Automated Med. | 1 | 2 |
Thomas Saccone v. Board of Trustees of the Police and Firemen's Retirement System (071841)green2 sentences2026Ridgefield Park, 244 N.J. at 17 (quoting Saccone v. Bd. of Trs., PFRS, 219 N.J. 369, 380 (2014)); accord In re Alleged Failure of Altice USA, Inc., 253 N.J. 406, 415 (2023) (“Preemption determinations are reviewed de novo, as are the issues of statutory interpretation necessary to the preemption inquiry.”); In re Reglan Litig., 226 N.J 315, 327-28 (2016) (applying de novo review to determine “whether federal law preempts plaintiffs’ state-law action”). 2026Ridgefield Park, 244 N.J. at 17 (quoting Saccone v. Bd. of Trs., PFRS, 219 N.J. 369, 380 (2014)); accord In re Alleged Failure of Altice USA, Inc., 253 N.J. 406 , 415 (2023) (“Preemption determinations are reviewed de novo, as are the issues of statutory interpretation necessary to the preemption inquiry.”); In re Reglan Litig., 226 N.J 315, 327-28 (2016) (applying de novo review to determine “whether federal law preempts plaintiffs’ state-law action”). | 1 | 1 |
Watkins v. Resorts International Hotel & Casino Inc.green1 sentence2025A. "Standing is a threshold requirement for justiciability," Watkins v. Resorts Int'l Hotel & Casino, Inc., 124 N.J. 398, 421 (1991), and "refers to the plaintiff's A-2427-24 10 ability or entitlement to maintain an action before the court." N.J. | 1 | 1 |
Malone v. White Motor Corp.green1 sentence2019"Accordingly, '[t]he purpose of Congress is the ultimate touchstone' of [preemption] analysis." Cipollone v. Liggett Grp., Inc., 505 U.S. 504, 516 (1992) (first alteration in original) (quoting Malone v. White Motor Corp., 435 U.S. 497, 504 (1978)). | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Ruizgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Carter v. Meadowgreen Associatesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Alessi v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Black v. Financial Freedom Senior Funding Corp.green | 1 | 1 |
| FMC Corp. v. Hollidaygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Ridgway v. Ridgwaygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Gustafson v. City Of Lake Angelusgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Chemical Specialties Manufacturers Association, Inc. v. Clifford L. Allenby John K. Van De Kamp, Esq.green | 1 | 1 |
| Cairy v. Superior Courtgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Sforza v. Kenco Constructional Contracting, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Commonwealth v. Federicogreen | 1 | 1 |
| MacDonald v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp.green | 1 | 1 |
| Wisconsin Public Intervenor v. Mortiergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Maher v. NJ TRANS. RAIL OPERATIONSgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Huron Portland Cement Co. v. City of Detroitgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Thermographic Diagnostics, Inc. v. Allstate Insurancegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Burch v. Amsterdam Corporationgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway v. Buellgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Lingle v. Norge Division of Magic Chef, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New Jersey. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon
green
2 sentences2013The broad preemption rule in Garmon , however, does not apply when the arguably protected or prohibited activities “touch interests so deeply rooted in local feeling and responsibility that, in the absence of compelling congressional direction, we could not infer that Congress had deprived the States of the power to act.” Id. at 244 , 79 S.Ct. 773 . 2013The broad preemption rule in Garmon , however, does not apply when the arguably protected or prohibited activities “touch interests so deeply rooted in local feeling and responsibility that, in the absence of compelling congressional direction, we could not infer that Congress had deprived the States of the power to act.” Id. at 244 , 79 S.Ct. 773 . | 3 | 1987–2016 |
In Re Local 195, IFPTE
green
2 sentences2024When the dominant concern is the government's managerial A-0277-23 12 prerogative to determine policy, a subject may not be included in collective negotiations even though it may intimately affect employees' working conditions. [Loc. 195, IFPTE, 88 N.J. at 404-05 .] "In the preemption inquiry, 'the mere existence of legislation relating to a given term or condition of employment does not automatically preclude negotiations.'" In re Ridgefield Park Bd. of Educ., 244 N.J. at 17 (quoting Bethlehem Twp. 2015When legislation or a regulation “establishes a specific term or condition of employment that leaves no room for discretionary action, then negotiation on that term is fully preempted.” Local 195, supra, 88 N.J. at 403 , 443 A.2d 187 ; see State Supervisory Emps. | 2 | 2015–2024 |
Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council
green
2 sentences2019"When Congress legislates in a field where states have traditionally exercised their 'historic police powers,' the preemption inquiry begins with the 'assumption' that Congress did not intend to supersede a state statute 'unless that was [Congress's] clear and manifest purpose.'" Ibid. (alteration in original) (quoting Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, 518 U.S. 470, 485 (1996)). 2017"When Congress legislates in a field where states have traditionally exercised their historic police powers, the preemption inquiry begins with the assumption that Congress did not intend to supersede a state statute unless that was [Congress's] clear and manifest purpose." Ibid. (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, 518 U.S. 470, 485 , 116 S. Ct. 2240, 2250 , 135 L. | 2 | 2017–2019 |
American Airlines, Inc. v. Wolens
green
2 sentences2013Of particular import is the Court’s holding that: The ADA’s preemption clause, § 1305(a)(1), read together with the FAA’s saving clause, stops States from imposing them own substantive standards with respect to rates, routes, or services, but not from affording relief to a party who claims and proves that an airline dishonored a term the airline itself stipulated. [7d. at 232-33, 115 S.Ct. at 826 , 130 L.Ed.2d at 728 .] 3 Here, resolution of the preemption issue hinges on whether the sale of a headset and an alcoholic beverage “relat[es] to price, routes, or service[J” We hold that it does. 2013Of particular import is the Court’s holding that: The ADA’s preemption clause, § 1305(a)(1), read together with the FAA’s saving clause, stops States from imposing them own substantive standards with respect to rates, routes, or services, but not from affording relief to a party who claims and proves that an airline dishonored a term the airline itself stipulated. [7d. at 232-33, 115 S.Ct. at 826 , 130 L.Ed.2d at 728 .] 3 Here, resolution of the preemption issue hinges on whether the sale of a headset and an alcoholic beverage “relat[es] to price, routes, or service[J” We hold that it does. | 2 | 1998–2013 |
Smith v. American Home Prod. Corp.
green
2 sentences2005Id. at 110, 131, 855 A.2d 608 . 28 This court’s preemption analysis agrees with that conclusion. 2005Id. at 110, 131, 855 A. 2d 608 . [28] This court's preemption analysis agrees with that conclusion. | 2 | 2005–2005 |
Fidelity Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. De La Cuesta
green
2 sentences2003Fidelity, 458 U.S. at 154 , 102 S.Ct. at 3023 , 73 L.Ed. 2d at 675 . 2003Fidelity, 458 U.S. at 154 , 102 S.Ct. at 3023 , 73 L.Ed. 2d at 675 . | 2 | 1999–2003 |
State v. State Supervisory Employees Association
green
2 sentences1982Thus, we left no doubt that the preemption doctrine applies to any validly adopted regulation, regardless of which agency or department promulgated it, provided the regulation definitively and specifically fixes a term or condition of employment. 78 N.J. at 80-81 . 1982The preemption doctrine applies to regulations “which expressly set terms and conditions of employment.” State Supervisory, 78 N.J. at 80 . | 2 | 1982–1991 |
Dewey v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.
green
2 sentences1991This Court noted in Dewey that FIFRA, the statute addressed in Ferebee and Papas , also contained a preemption clause presumably intended to promote uniformity of labeling, and agreed with the court in Ferebee that the existence of such a goal did not necessarily require a finding of preemption. 121 N.J. at 92 , 577 A. 2d 1239 ; cf. Burch v. Amsterdam Corp., 366 A. 2d 1079, 1085 (D.C. 1976) (manufacturer of hazardous substance not immune from liability *139 based on inadequate warning even though Federal Hazardous Substance Act precludes a state requirement unless such requirement is identical 1991This Court noted in Dewey that FIFRA, the statute addressed in Ferebee and Papas , also contained a preemption clause presumably intended to promote uniformity of labeling, and agreed with the court in Ferebee that the existence of such a goal did not necessarily require a finding of preemption. 121 N.J. at 92 , 577 A. 2d 1239 ; cf. Burch v. Amsterdam Corp., 366 A. 2d 1079, 1085 (D.C. 1976) (manufacturer of hazardous substance not immune from liability *139 based on inadequate warning even though Federal Hazardous Substance Act precludes a state requirement unless such requirement is identical | 2 | 1991–1991 |
Overlook Terrace Management Corp. v. Rent Control Board of West New York
green
2 sentences1991The ultimate question is whether, upon a survey of all the interests involved in the subject, it can be said *250 with confidence that the Legislature intended to immobilize the municipalities from dealing with local aspects otherwise within their power to act. [ 53 N.J. at 554-555 , 251 A. 2d 761 ] In Overlook Terrace Management Corp. v. Rent Control Bd. of West New York, 71 N.J. 451 , 366 A. 2d 321 (1976), the Supreme Court listed some of the pertinent questions to consider in evaluating the applicability of the preemption doctrine. 1991The ultimate question is whether, upon a survey of all the interests involved in the subject, it can be said *250 with confidence that the Legislature intended to immobilize the municipalities from dealing with local aspects otherwise within their power to act. [ 53 N.J. at 554-555 , 251 A. 2d 761 ] In Overlook Terrace Management Corp. v. Rent Control Bd. of West New York, 71 N.J. 451 , 366 A. 2d 321 (1976), the Supreme Court listed some of the pertinent questions to consider in evaluating the applicability of the preemption doctrine. | 2 | 1979–1991 |
Chamber of Commerce of the United States v. State
green
2 sentences1991Chamber of Commerce v. State, 89 N.J. 131 , 445 A. 2d 353 (1982) as follows: Preemption analysis begins with identifying the subject matter of the state law and determining whether there is a federal law operative in that field. 1991Chamber of Commerce v. State, 89 N.J. 131 , 445 A. 2d 353 (1982) as follows: Preemption analysis begins with identifying the subject matter of the state law and determining whether there is a federal law operative in that field. | 2 | 1991–1991 |
FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE, NEWARK LODGE NO. 12 VS. CITY OF NEWARK (C-000177-16, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
green
1 sentence2020Id. at 504-06 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Metropolitan Life Insurance v. Massachusetts
green
1 sentence2020"We indicated in Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. Massachusetts, 471 U.S. 724 (1985), that these provisions 'are not a model of A-1152-18T1 4 Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, the provisions of this subchapter and subchapter III shall supersede any and all [s]tate laws insofar as they may now or hereafter relate to any employee benefit plan .... | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Wyeth v. Levine
green
2 sentences2016The United States Supreme Court addressed the preemption doctrine in the context of federal drug labeling requirements in Mensing and Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U.S. 555 , 129 S.Ct. 1187 , 173 L.Ed.2d 51 (2009). 2016The United States Supreme Court addressed the preemption doctrine in the context of federal drug labeling requirements in Mensing and Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U.S. 555 , 129 S.Ct. 1187 , 173 L.Ed.2d 51 (2009). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
PLIVA, Inc. v. Mensing
green
2 sentences2016In Mensing, supra, the United States Supreme Court held that federal law preempted state-law failure-to-warn lawsuits against the defendant generic drug manufacturers, which had provided the same labeling as the brand-name drug. 564 U.S. at 618 , 131 S.Ct. at 2577-78 , 180 L.Ed.2d at 592 . 2016In Mensing, supra, the United States Supreme Court held that federal law preempted state-law failure-to-warn lawsuits against the defendant generic drug manufacturers, which had provided the same labeling as the brand-name drug. 564 U.S. at 618 , 131 S.Ct. at 2577-78 , 180 L.Ed.2d at 592 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| In Re Referendum on City of Trenton Ordinance 09-02 green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Kurns v. Railroad Friction Products Corp. green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| In Re Piscataway Township Board of Education green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| State v. Communications Workers green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| In Re Ordinance 04-75 green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Morales v. Trans World Airlines, Inc. green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| Hawxhurst v. Hawxhurst green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| Shinn v. Encore Mortgage Services, Inc. green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| cluster 772005 green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| Ellwest Stereo Theatres of Memphis, Inc. v. United States green | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| Esposito v. South Carolina Coastal Council green | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| Long Beach Equities, Inc. v. County of Ventura green | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| Lusardi v. Curtis Point Property Owners Ass'n green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| Strasenburgh v. Straubmuller green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| Lewis v. American Cyanamid Co. green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| Garden State Farms, Inc. v. Mayor Louis Bay, II green | 1 | 1997–1997 |
| Dade v. Cannatella green | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| Harris v. Department of Agriculture green | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| Gills v. Ford Motor Co. green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| Boyle v. Chrysler Corp. green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| Home Builders League of South Jersey, Inc. v. Township of Evesham green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| Inganamort v. Borough of Fort Lee green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| Council of New Jersey State College Locals v. State Board of Higher Education green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| California v. ARC America Corp. green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| English v. General Electric Co. green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| Maher v. New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, Inc. green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
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.