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.
9 Nebraska opinions name it 2 courts 1983–2017 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Nebraska 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 |
|---|---|---|
Chapman v. Union Pacific Railroadgreen2 sentences1991See, Chapman v. Union Pacific Railroad, 237 Neb. 617 , 467 N.W.2d 388 (1991) (Federal Employers’ Liability Act); State ex rel. 1991See, Chapman v. Union Pacific Railroad, 237 Neb. 617 , 467 N.W.2d 388 (1991) (Federal Employers’ Liability Act); State ex rel. | 1 | 2 |
United States v. City of New Havengreen1 sentence1995United States v. City of New Haven, 367 F. Supp. 1338, 1340 (D. | 1 | 1 |
Consolidated Freightways Corporation of Delaware v. Raymond Kasselgreen1 sentence1990Just as the Supremacy Clause does not secure rights within the meaning of § 1983, neither does the Commerce Clause.” Kassel, 730 F.2d at 1144 (footnote omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Gould, Inc. v. Wisconsin Department of Industry, Labor and Human Relationsgreen2 sentences1990Ed. 2d 508 (1979); White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Williams, 810 F.2d 844 (9th Cir. 1987) (preemption of state law under the supremacy clause does not give rise to a cause of action under § 1983); Gould, Inc. v. Wisconsin Dept. of Industry, Labor, 750 F.2d 608 (7th Cir. 1984), aff’d 475 U.S. 282 , 106 S. Ct. 1057 , 89 L. 1990See also Gould, Inc. v. Wisconsin Department of Industry, Labor and Human Relations, 750 F.2d 608, 616 (7th Cir. 1984) (Supremacy Clause violation does not present a cognizable claim under section 1983). 503 A.2d at 221 . | 1 | 1 |
Private Truck Council of America, Inc. v. Secretary of Stategreen1 sentence1990See also Gould, Inc. v. Wisconsin Department of Industry, Labor and Human Relations, 750 F.2d 608, 616 (7th Cir. 1984) (Supremacy Clause violation does not present a cognizable claim under section 1983). 503 A.2d at 221 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Nebraska. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Plyler v. Doe
green
1 sentence2017The GAL appears to be claiming that because the county court failed to make a specific finding that reunification with one or both parents is not viable due to abuse, neglect, or abandonment of Jaime, then this will affect Jaime’s ability to acquire a special immigrant status, and this somehow “obstructs federal immigration policy.” Id. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Martinez v. California
green
2 sentences1999A construction of the federal statute which permitted a state immunity defense to have controlling effect would transmute a basic guarantee into an illusory promise; and the supremacy clause of the Constitution insures that the proper construction may be enforced...." Martinez v. California, 444 U.S. at 284 n. 8, 100 S.Ct. 553 . (a) Sovereign Immunity for State Appellees We first consider whether § 1983 abrogates traditional sovereign immunity for states and state officials. 1999A construction of the federal statute which permitted a state immunity defense to have controlling effect would transmute a basic guarantee into an illusory promise; and the supremacy clause of the Constitution insures that the proper construction may be enforced...." Martinez v. California, 444 U.S. at 284 n. 8, 100 S.Ct. 553 . (a) Sovereign Immunity for State Appellees We first consider whether § 1983 abrogates traditional sovereign immunity for states and state officials. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Maryland v. Louisiana
green
2 sentences1991“Consideration under the Supremacy Clause starts with the basic assumption that Congress did not intend to displace state law.” Maryland v. Louisiana, 451 U.S. 725, 746 , 101 S. Ct. 2114 , 68 L. 1991“Consideration under the Supremacy Clause starts with the basic assumption that Congress did not intend to displace state law.” Maryland v. Louisiana, 451 U.S. 725, 746 , 101 S. Ct. 2114 , 68 L. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
State Ex Rel. Douglas v. Karnes
green
2 sentences1991Douglas v. Karnes, 216 Neb. 750 , 346 N.W.2d 231 (1984) (the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution binds the several states, subordinates state law, including legislation, to a congressional enactment, and supersedes state law which conflicts with federal law). 1991Douglas v. Karnes, 216 Neb. 750 , 346 N.W.2d 231 (1984) (the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution binds the several states, subordinates state law, including legislation, to a congressional enactment, and supersedes state law which conflicts with federal law). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Golden State Transit Corp. v. City of Los Angeles
green
2 sentences1990Cases involving the supremacy clause and reaching the same result are Golden State Transit Corp. v. City of Los Angeles, _ U.S. _, 110 S. Ct. 444 , 107 L. 1990Cases involving the supremacy clause and reaching the same result are Golden State Transit Corp. v. City of Los Angeles, _ U.S. _, 110 S. Ct. 444 , 107 L. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Williams
green
2 sentences1990Ed. 2d 508 (1979); White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Williams, 810 F.2d 844 (9th Cir. 1987) (preemption of state law under the supremacy clause does not give rise to a cause of action under § 1983); Gould, Inc. v. Wisconsin Dept. of Industry, Labor, 750 F.2d 608 (7th Cir. 1984), aff’d 475 U.S. 282 , 106 S. Ct. 1057 , 89 L. 1990Ed. 2d 508 (1979); White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Williams, 810 F.2d 844 (9th Cir. 1987) (preemption of state law under the supremacy clause does not give rise to a cause of action under § 1983); Gould, Inc. v. Wisconsin Dept. of Industry, Labor, 750 F.2d 608 (7th Cir. 1984), aff’d 475 U.S. 282 , 106 S. Ct. 1057 , 89 L. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Maryland Pest Control Association v. Montgomery County, Maryland
green
2 sentences1990Ed. 2d 223 (1986) (action brought by corporation alleging that state statutes were preempted by federal labor law, in violation of the supremacy clause, was not cognizable under *431 § 1983); and Maryland Pest Control v. Montgomery County, Md., 884 F.2d 160 (4th Cir. 1989) (the supremacy clause does not secure rights within the meaning of § 1983 so as to entitle a successful litigant to attorney fees pursuant to § 1988). 1990Ed. 2d 223 (1986) (action brought by corporation alleging that state statutes were preempted by federal labor law, in violation of the supremacy clause, was not cognizable under *431 § 1983); and Maryland Pest Control v. Montgomery County, Md., 884 F.2d 160 (4th Cir. 1989) (the supremacy clause does not secure rights within the meaning of § 1983 so as to entitle a successful litigant to attorney fees pursuant to § 1988). | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Chapman v. Houston Welfare Rights Organization
green
2 sentences1990Ed. 2d 420 (1989) (the supremacy clause, of its own force, does not create rights enforceable under § 1983); Chapman v. Houston Welfare Rights Org., 441 U.S. 600 , 99 S. Ct. 1905 , 60 L. 1990Ed. 2d 420 (1989) (the supremacy clause, of its own force, does not create rights enforceable under § 1983); Chapman v. Houston Welfare Rights Org., 441 U.S. 600 , 99 S. Ct. 1905 , 60 L. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Wisconsin Department of Industry, Labor & Human Relations v. Gould Inc.
green
2 sentences1990Ed. 2d 508 (1979); White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Williams, 810 F.2d 844 (9th Cir. 1987) (preemption of state law under the supremacy clause does not give rise to a cause of action under § 1983); Gould, Inc. v. Wisconsin Dept. of Industry, Labor, 750 F.2d 608 (7th Cir. 1984), aff’d 475 U.S. 282 , 106 S. Ct. 1057 , 89 L. 1990Ed. 2d 508 (1979); White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Williams, 810 F.2d 844 (9th Cir. 1987) (preemption of state law under the supremacy clause does not give rise to a cause of action under § 1983); Gould, Inc. v. Wisconsin Dept. of Industry, Labor, 750 F.2d 608 (7th Cir. 1984), aff’d 475 U.S. 282 , 106 S. Ct. 1057 , 89 L. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
M'culloch v. State of Maryland
green
2 sentences1984This is, we think, the unavoidable consequence of that supremacy which the constitution has declared.” M’Culloch v. State of Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 ( 4 Wheat. 316, 436 ) 4 L. 1984This is, we think, the unavoidable consequence of that supremacy which the constitution has declared.” M’Culloch v. State of Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 ( 4 Wheat. 316, 436 ) 4 L. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
W. J. Usery, Jr., Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor v. First National Bank of Arizona, a National Banking Association
green
1 sentence1983Bank of Arizona, 586 F.2d 107 (9th Cir. 1978). *786 We believe the language of § 407 is clear beyond question, and therefore, by reason of the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution, we must hold that under the provisions of 42 U.S.C. § 407 (1976), social security payments to a recipient on deposit with a bank are exempt from garnishment under state law. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
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.