supremacy clause (Kansas) · Go Syfert
← Kansas issues

supremacy clause in Kansas

9 Kansas opinions name it 3 courts 1981–2026 3 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Kansas 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.

Followed or applied (1)

CaseFollowedCited
M'culloch v. State of Marylandgreen
· 1819 · cited in 2 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 1987–2026
2 sentences

1987The supremacy clause, Article 6 of the United States Constitution, provides in pertinent part: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, 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.” The United States Supreme Court first interpreted the supremacy clause in McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316 , 4 L.

1987The supremacy clause, Article 6 of the United States Constitution, provides in pertinent part: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, 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.” The United States Supreme Court first interpreted the supremacy clause in McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316 , 4 L.

12

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (7)

CaseCitedYears
Farley v. Engelken green
kan · 1987
2 sentences

2022The court acknowledged that the "United States Supreme Court has 54 applied heightened scrutiny to very limited classifications," but explained "we are interpreting the Kansas Constitution and thus are not bound by the supremacy clause of the federal Constitution." 241 Kan. at 674 .

2022The court acknowledged that the "United States Supreme Court has 54 applied heightened scrutiny to very limited classifications," but explained "we are interpreting the Kansas Constitution and thus are not bound by the supremacy clause of the federal Constitution." 241 Kan. at 674 .

22022–2022
Kiwanis International v. Ridgewood Kiwanis Club green
njd · 1986
1 sentence

1997Finding that Congress' specific concerns were with "securing to the owner the good will of his business and protecting the public against spurious and false marked products," the Court found: "In sum, it would do violence to the delicate balance of power struck by the supremacy clause to hold that the tangential federal interest in trade-mark uniformity preempts the principled state interest in eliminating discrimination which is at issue here." 627 F. Supp. at 1392 .

11997–1997
Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. State Energy Resources Conservation & Development Commission green
scotus · 1983
2 sentences

1995Pacific Gas Electric v. Energy Resources Comm'n , 461 U.S. 190 , 75 L.Ed.2d 752 , 765 , 103 S.Ct. 1713 (1983).

1995Pacific Gas Electric v. Energy Resources Comm'n , 461 U.S. 190 , 75 L.Ed.2d 752 , 765 , 103 S.Ct. 1713 (1983).

11995–1995
Pacific Coast Dairy, Inc. v. Department of Agriculture of Cal. green
scotus · 1943
1 sentence

1993The Court held that the state could not punish the distributor for doing in an exclusively federal jurisdiction what was lawful by the laws of the United States, under the superior authority of the supremacy clause. 318 U.S. at 291-95 .

11993–1993
Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Gates neutral
ksd · 1984
1 sentence

1987On motion for reconsideration, the federal court also considered the constitutional issue now before this court and held that if Kansas were to require the licensing of the FDIC before the FDIC could exercise its powers granted under the federal law, the state law would violate the supremacy clause of the United States Constitution. 594 F. Supp. at 43 .

11987–1987
United Missouri Bank of Kansas City v. Robinson neutral
kanctapp · 1981
1 sentence

1984United Missouri Bank of Kansas City v. Robinson, 7 Kan.

11984–1984
Testa v. Katt green
scotus · 1947
2 sentences

1981Testa v. Katt, 330 U.S. 386 , 91 L.Ed. 967 , 67 S.Ct. 810 (1947).

1981Testa v. Katt, 330 U.S. 386 , 91 L.Ed. 967 , 67 S.Ct. 810 (1947).

11981–1981

Where else courts name it

CA 325 (1960–2026) IL 147 (1953–2026) WA 58 (1953–2024) NY 55 (1949–2017) TX 51 (1976–2024) CT 49 (1974–2022) NJ 27 (1963–2026) MA 27 (1954–2023) FL 25 (1960–2017) PA 24 (1944–2014) MI 23 (1962–2022) WI 20 (1970–2016) MO 19 (1970–2019) LA 17 (1966–2020) IA 16 (1966–2018) CO 16 (1970–2026) NM 16 (1958–2021) IN 14 (1978–2016) MN 12 (1974–2017) AZ 11 (1970–2022) WV 11 (1987–2026) AR 11 (1988–2025) MD 11 (1965–2021) MT 10 (1979–2009) NV 10 (1965–2019) RI 10 (1945–2015) ID 9 (1974–1988) KS 9 (1981–2026) OH 9 (1948–2017) NE 9 (1983–2017) AK 9 (1970–2003) NC 8 (1950–2022) TN 8 (1956–1993) AL 8 (1964–1995) ND 8 (1979–2015) ME 8 (1970–2011) OK 8 (1979–2020) UT 7 (1976–2017) KY 6 (1980–2026) NH 6 (1948–1995) GA 6 (1981–2024) OR 5 (1973–2024) VA 4 (1991–2009) VT 3 (2000–2014) HI 3 (1980–2017) SC 3 (1989–2021) MS 2 (1966–1970) DC 2 (1981–1992) WY 2 (1985–2003) SD 2 (1985–2010)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check