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 Pennsylvania opinions name it 3 courts 1967–2025 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Pennsylvania 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 |
|---|---|---|
Stockton v. Department of Corrections, Business Manager-Deckergreen1 sentence2025Retail Mall, L.P., 126 A.3d 959, 967 (Pa. Super. 2015) (citation omitted). *** Monsanto first contends that it is entitled to JNOV because the doctrine of federal preemption bars Ms. Martel’s failure-to-warn claim. | 1 | 1 |
Burns Iss v. Pa. Hum. Rel. Com.green2 sentences1989Conrail asserts that federal legislation and regulations prohibit the PUC from imposing costs upon it and that, therefore, the doctrine of federal preemption bars the PUC’s allocation of costs to Conrail in the present case. “ If Congress evidences an intent to occupy a given field, any state law falling within that particular field is preempted.’ ” Burns International Security Services, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission, 119 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 418, 424 , 547 A.2d 818, 821 (1988) (quoting Silkwood v. Kerr-McGee Corporation, 464 U.S. 238, 248 (1984)). 1989Conrail asserts that federal legislation and regulations prohibit the PUC from imposing costs upon it and that, therefore, the doctrine of federal preemption bars the PUC’s allocation of costs to Conrail in the present case. “ If Congress evidences an intent to occupy a given field, any state law falling within that particular field is preempted.’ ” Burns International Security Services, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission, 119 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 418, 424 , 547 A.2d 818, 821 (1988) (quoting Silkwood v. Kerr-McGee Corporation, 464 U.S. 238, 248 (1984)). | 1 | 1 |
Silkwood v. Kerr-McGee Corp.green1 sentence1989Conrail asserts that federal legislation and regulations prohibit the PUC from imposing costs upon it and that, therefore, the doctrine of federal preemption bars the PUC’s allocation of costs to Conrail in the present case. “ If Congress evidences an intent to occupy a given field, any state law falling within that particular field is preempted.’ ” Burns International Security Services, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission, 119 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 418, 424 , 547 A.2d 818, 821 (1988) (quoting Silkwood v. Kerr-McGee Corporation, 464 U.S. 238, 248 (1984)). | 1 | 1 |
Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board v. Columbia Hospitalgreen2 sentences1977The doctrine of federal preemption as it applies to matters of representative certification has been explained by this Court in Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board v. Columbia Hospital, 21 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 236, 239-40 , 344 A.2d 740, 742 (1975), where the NLRB had ordered a new certification election: [T]his Court cannot sanction the continuing jurisdiction of the PLRB here, for it would result in a clear interference with an ongoing representation proceeding before the NLRB. 1977The doctrine of federal preemption as it applies to matters of representative certification has been explained by this Court in Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board v. Columbia Hospital, 21 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 236, 239-40 , 344 A.2d 740, 742 (1975), where the NLRB had ordered a new certification election: [T]his Court cannot sanction the continuing jurisdiction of the PLRB here, for it would result in a clear interference with an ongoing representation proceeding before the NLRB. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
David Schaffner, Jr. v. Monsanto Corp
green
2 sentences2025In support, Monsanto relies on the recent decision of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Schaffner v. Monsanto Corp., 113 F.4th 364 (3rd Cir. 2024), in which that Court, interpreting Pennsylvania law, found that a Pennsylvania duty to warn claim “imposes requirements that are different from those imposed under FIFRA, and [the plaintiff’s claim] is therefore preempted by FIFRA.” Monsanto’s Brief at 53-54 (quoting Schaffner, 113 F.4th at 371 ). 2025In support, Monsanto relies on the recent decision of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Schaffner v. Monsanto Corp., 113 F.4th 364 (3rd Cir. 2024), in which that Court, interpreting Pennsylvania law, found that a Pennsylvania duty to warn claim “imposes requirements that are different from those imposed under FIFRA, and [the plaintiff’s claim] is therefore preempted by FIFRA.” Monsanto’s Brief at 53-54 (quoting Schaffner, 113 F.4th at 371 ). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Mastrocola v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority
green
1 sentence2013Mastrocola, 941 A.2d at 90 n. 12 (emphasis added). | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc.
green
2 sentences1997The doctrine of federal preemption as applied to the FIFRA has been a much litigated issue before and since the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 505 U.S. 504 , 112 S.Ct. 2608 , 120 L.Ed.2d 407 (1992). 1997The doctrine of federal preemption as applied to the FIFRA has been a much litigated issue before and since the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 505 U.S. 504 , 112 S.Ct. 2608 , 120 L.Ed.2d 407 (1992). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Hartenstine v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences1992However, the analysis in Howard has been found to be irrelevant to the issue of preemption because it “was limited to the contract claim; there was no reference to preemption in the majority opinion, and, as the concurring opinion stated, the existence of a federal preemption defense would be insufficient to invoke the exercise removal jurisdiction." Hartenstine, supra, 196 Cal.App.3d at 218 , 241 Cal.Rptr. at 764 . 1992However, the analysis in Howard has been found to be irrelevant to the issue of preemption because it “was limited to the contract claim; there was no reference to preemption in the majority opinion, and, as the concurring opinion stated, the existence of a federal preemption defense would be insufficient to invoke the exercise removal jurisdiction." Hartenstine, supra, 196 Cal.App.3d at 218 , 241 Cal.Rptr. at 764 . | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Vaca v. Sipes
green
2 sentences1981The court stated: Appellees rely on a case decided this past term by the Supreme Court, Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171 , 87 S.Ct. 903 , 17 L.Ed.2d 842 (1967), as indicating that, with a multitude of decisions for state courts to follow, federal preemption is no longer a requisite, and should yield more often to state jurisdiction. 1981The court stated: Appellees rely on a case decided this past term by the Supreme Court, Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171 , 87 S.Ct. 903 , 17 L.Ed.2d 842 (1967), as indicating that, with a multitude of decisions for state courts to follow, federal preemption is no longer a requisite, and should yield more often to state jurisdiction. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
International Ass'n of MacHinists v. Gonzales
green
1 sentence1967When speaking of peripheral concerns in Garmon , the Supreme Court cited International Assn. of Machinists v. Gonzales, 356 U.S. 617 (1958). | 1 | 1967–1967 |
San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon
green
1 sentence1967San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon, 359 U.S. 236 (1959). | 1 | 1967–1967 |
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.