federal preemption doctrine in Ohio

2025“In determining whether federal law preempts state law, ‘[t]he purpose of Congress is the ultimate touchstone.’ ” Id. at ¶ 14, quoting Malone v. White Motor Corp., 435 U.S. 497, 504 (1978). {¶15} Thus, federal preemption analysis arises in cases where both state and federal law may be applicable and the court must determine whether federal law preempts the application of state law.

2025Yost v. Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft, 2019-Ohio-5084, ¶ 12-14 (10th Athens App. No. 24CA34 7 Dist.) for a general discussion of the federal preemption doctrine.

2004See Jones Metal Products Co. v. Walker (1972), 29 Ohio St.2d 173, 176-177 , 58 O.O.2d 393 , 281 N.E.2d 1 , citing Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul (1963), 373 U.S. 132 , 83 S.Ct. 1210 , 10 L.Ed.2d 248 . {¶ 26} In the past, we have resolved numerous cases in which it was argued that the federal preemption doctrine invalidated state regulations, including cases in which it was argued that the doctrine precluded courts from providing state common-law tort remedies to plaintiffs. 5 In some cases, we have determined that federal law invalidates Ohio law.

2004See Jones Metal Products Co. v. Walker (1972), 29 Ohio St.2d 173, 176-177 , 58 O.O.2d 393 , 281 N.E.2d 1 , citing Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul (1963), 373 U.S. 132 , 83 S.Ct. 1210 , 10 L.Ed.2d 248 . {¶ 26} In the past, we have resolved numerous cases in which it was argued that the federal preemption doctrine invalidated state regulations, including cases in which it was argued that the doctrine precluded courts from providing state common-law tort remedies to plaintiffs. 5 In some cases, we have determined that federal law invalidates Ohio law.

2004See Jones Metal Products Co. v. Walker (1972), 29 Ohio St.2d 173, 176-177 , 58 O.O.2d 393 , 281 N.E.2d 1 , citing Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul (1963), 373 U.S. 132 , 83 S.Ct. 1210 , 10 L.Ed.2d 248 . {¶ 26} In the past, we have resolved numerous cases in which it was argued that the federal preemption doctrine invalidated state regulations, including cases in which it was argued that the doctrine precluded courts from providing state common-law tort remedies to plaintiffs. 5 In some cases, we have determined that federal law invalidates Ohio law.

2004See Jones Metal Products Co. v. Walker (1972), 29 Ohio St.2d 173, 176-177 , 58 O.O.2d 393 , 281 N.E.2d 1 , citing Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul (1963), 373 U.S. 132 , 83 S.Ct. 1210 , 10 L.Ed.2d 248 . {¶ 26} In the past, we have resolved numerous cases in which it was argued that the federal preemption doctrine invalidated state regulations, including cases in which it was argued that the doctrine precluded courts from providing state common-law tort remedies to plaintiffs. 5 In some cases, we have determined that federal law invalidates Ohio law.

2004See, e.g., Pinchot v. Charter One Bank, F.S.B., 99 Ohio St.3d 390 , 2003-Ohio-4122 , 792 N.E.2d 1105 (unanimously finding that federal regulations enacted to implement the Home Owners’ Loan Act, Section 1461 et seq., Title 12, U.S.Code, did not preempt a state law providing a $250 civil damage award for failure to record satisfaction of a residential mortgage within 90 days of payment). {¶ 27} It is unnecessary to survey the law of federal preemption in depth, as we have done so previously.

2004See, e.g., Pinchot v. Charter One Bank, F.S.B., 99 Ohio St.3d 390 , 2003-Ohio-4122 , 792 N.E.2d 1105 (unanimously finding that federal regulations enacted to implement the Home Owners’ Loan Act, Section 1461 et seq., Title 12, U.S.Code, did not preempt a state law providing a $250 civil damage award for failure to record satisfaction of a residential mortgage within 90 days of payment). {¶ 27} It is unnecessary to survey the law of federal preemption in depth, as we have done so previously.