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.
7 Iowa opinions name it 2 courts 1999–2019 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Iowa 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 |
|---|---|---|
De Canas v. Bicared2 sentences2017Without question the authority to regulate immigration is “exclusively a federal power.” De Canas v. Bica, 424 U.S. 351, 354 , 96 S. Ct. 933, 936 (1976). 2017Without question the authority to regulate immigration is “exclusively a federal power.” De Canas v. Bica, 424 U.S. 351, 354 , 96 S. Ct. 933, 936 (1976). | 4 | 4 |
State of Iowa v. Martha Aracely Martinezgreen1 sentence2018“The United States Supreme Court has developed two broad categories of preemption of state law: express and implied.” State v. Martinez, 896 N.W.2d 737, 746 (Iowa 2017). | 1 | 1 |
Theresa Huck v. Wyeth, Inc. D/B/A Wyeth Schwarz Pharma, Inc. and Pliva, Inc.green1 sentence2018“The federal preemption doctrine derives from the Supremacy Clause of the Federal Constitution.” Huck v. Wyeth, Inc., 850 N.W.2d 353, 362 (Iowa 2014). | 1 | 1 |
Ackerman v. American Cyanamid Co.green1 sentence1999As we noted in Ackerman v. American Cyanamid Co., the federal preemption doctrine is grounded upon the supremacy clause of the federal constitution: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof ... 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. 586 N.W.2d 208, 211 (Iowa 1998) (quoting in part U.S. Const, art. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Iowa. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Arizona v. United States
green
2 sentences2017The identity theft law may not specifically target unauthorized workers or be the full frontal assault on the employment of unauthorized aliens found prohibited in Arizona, 567 U.S. at ___ , 132 S. Ct. at 2505 , but the outcome, nevertheless, is not saved from the doctrine of federal preemption. 2017The identity theft law may not specifically target unauthorized workers or be the full frontal assault on the employment of unauthorized aliens found prohibited in Arizona, 567 U.S. at ___ , 132 S. Ct. at 2505 , but the outcome, nevertheless, is not saved from the doctrine of federal preemption. | 4 | 2017–2017 |
La Salle National Bank v. County of Cook
green
2 sentences2019Id. at 87-88 , 340 N.E.2d 79 , 81-82. 2019Id. at 87-88 , 340 N.E.2d 79 , 81-82. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
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.