express preemption clause in Arizona

1997However, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in Hernandez-Gomez I and remanded for reconsideration in light of Myrick , in which it held that implied preemption may exist beyond the text of an express preemption clause in a statute. 514 U.S. at 284 , 115 S.Ct. at 1486 .

1997However, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in Hernandez-Gomez I and remanded for reconsideration in light of Myrick , in which it held that implied preemption may exist beyond the text of an express preemption clause in a statute. 514 U.S. at 284 , 115 S.Ct. at 1486 .

2014The presence of an express preemption clause, however, “does not immediately end the inquiry because the question of the substance and scope of Congress’ displacement of state law still remains.” Altria Group, Inc., 555 U.S. at 76 , 129 S.Ct. at 543 . ¶ 16 Medicare Part C contains an express preemption provision.

2014The presence of an express preemption clause, however, “does not immediately end the inquiry because the question of the substance and scope of Congress’ displacement of state law still remains.” Altria Group, Inc., 555 U.S. at 76 , 129 S.Ct. at 543 . ¶ 16 Medicare Part C contains an express preemption provision.

2014When a statute contains an express preemption clause, our “task of statutory construction must in the first instance focus on the plain wording of the clause.” CSX Transp., Inc. v. Easterwood, 507 U.S. 658, 664 , 113 S.Ct. 1732, 1737 , 123 L.Ed.2d 387 (1993).

2014When a statute contains an express preemption clause, our “task of statutory construction must in the first instance focus on the plain wording of the clause.” CSX Transp., Inc. v. Easterwood, 507 U.S. 658, 664 , 113 S.Ct. 1732, 1737 , 123 L.Ed.2d 387 (1993).

2019Williamson , 562 U.S. at 329 , 131 S.Ct. 1131 .

2019Williamson , 562 U.S. at 329 , 131 S.Ct. 1131 .

2019See, e.g. , King v. Ford Motor Co. , 209 F.3d 886 , 892 (6th Cir. 2000) ; 49 U.S.C. § 30103 (e) ("Compliance with a motor vehicle safety standard prescribed under this chapter does not exempt a person from liability at common law."); Geier , 529 U.S. at 868 , 120 S.Ct. 1913 ("The saving clause assumes that there are some significant number of common-law liability cases to save."). ¶58 And last, Dashi contends that "state regulatory action can only be preemptive if NHTSA has promulgated a standard 'applicable to the same aspect of performance.' " But this language is pulled from the Safety Act'

2019See, e.g. , King v. Ford Motor Co. , 209 F.3d 886 , 892 (6th Cir. 2000) ; 49 U.S.C. § 30103 (e) ("Compliance with a motor vehicle safety standard prescribed under this chapter does not exempt a person from liability at common law."); Geier , 529 U.S. at 868 , 120 S.Ct. 1913 ("The saving clause assumes that there are some significant number of common-law liability cases to save."). ¶58 And last, Dashi contends that "state regulatory action can only be preemptive if NHTSA has promulgated a standard 'applicable to the same aspect of performance.' " But this language is pulled from the Safety Act'

2018In addition, although "federal laws are presumed not to preempt state laws, courts do not invoke that presumption when the federal statute contains an express preemption clause." Id. ; see also Puerto Rico v. Franklin Cal. Tax-Free Trust , --- U.S. ----, 136 S. Ct. 1938 , 1946, 195 L.Ed.2d 298 (2016) ; cf. Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc. , 552 U.S. 312 , 315-30, 128 S.Ct. 999 , 169 L.Ed.2d 892 (2008) (analyzing federal statute's express preemption provision without invoking a presumption against preemption); Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs' Legal Comm. , 531 U.S. 341 , 347-48, 121 S.Ct. 1012 , 148 L.Ed.2d

2018In addition, although "federal laws are presumed not to preempt state laws, courts do not invoke that presumption when the federal statute contains an express preemption clause." Id. ; see also Puerto Rico v. Franklin Cal. Tax-Free Trust , --- U.S. ----, 136 S. Ct. 1938 , 1946, 195 L.Ed.2d 298 (2016) ; cf. Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc. , 552 U.S. 312 , 315-30, 128 S.Ct. 999 , 169 L.Ed.2d 892 (2008) (analyzing federal statute's express preemption provision without invoking a presumption against preemption); Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs' Legal Comm. , 531 U.S. 341 , 347-48, 121 S.Ct. 1012 , 148 L.Ed.2d

2018In addition, although "federal laws are presumed not to preempt state laws, courts do not invoke that presumption when the federal statute contains an express preemption clause." Id. ; see also Puerto Rico v. Franklin Cal. Tax-Free Trust , --- U.S. ----, 136 S. Ct. 1938 , 1946, 195 L.Ed.2d 298 (2016) ; cf. Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc. , 552 U.S. 312 , 315-30, 128 S.Ct. 999 , 169 L.Ed.2d 892 (2008) (analyzing federal statute's express preemption provision without invoking a presumption against preemption); Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs' Legal Comm. , 531 U.S. 341 , 347-48, 121 S.Ct. 1012 , 148 L.Ed.2d

2014In holding it did not, the Court noted the FEHBA contained no provision regarding reimbursement or subrogation rights and so the right to reimbursement arose from the contract and not the FEHBA The Court also found no indication of Congressional intent to completely “displace ordinarily applicable state law, and to confer federal jurisdiction thereby.” Id. at 680, 126 S.Ct. at 2125 . ¶ 33 Unlike the FEHBA, Medicare Part C and its associated regulations contain provisions regarding reimbursement and subrogation rights.

1997Id. at 288 , 115 S.Ct. at 1488 .