supremacy clause in New York

55 New York opinions name it 10 courts 1949–2017 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by New York 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.

Followed or applied (11)

Case	Followed	Cited
People v. Shapirogreen ny · 1980 · cited in 4 New York opinions naming this issue, 1980–1990 2 sentences 1990While a State may enact legislation more restrictive than the baseline protections allowed by this act, "any State law drawn more broadly * * * runs afoul of the supremacy clause (US Const, art VI, cl 2)” (People v Shapiro, supra, at 763 [citation omitted]). 1988Although title III "recognizes that a State is free to either adopt procedures and standards more restrictive than those imposed by the Federal act or, if it desires, to prohibit wiretapping within its borders altogether * * * under pre-emption principles, any State law drawn more broadly than title 3’s standards runs afoul of the supremacy clause (US Const, art VI, cl 2; see Tribe, American Constitutional Law, p 379)” (see, People v Shapiro, supra, at 763; see also, People v Principe, 65 NY2d 33 , 36).	2	4
Branson School District Re-82 v. Romergreen ca10 · 1998 · cited in 2 New York opinions naming this issue, 2017–2017 2 sentences 2017RE-82 v Romer, 161 F3d 619, 628-629 [10th Cir 1998] [Supremacy Clause challenge], cert denied 526 US 1068 [1999]; Rogers v Brockette, 588 F2d 1057, 1067-1071 [5th Cir 1979] [Supremacy Clause challenge]; Star-Kist Foods, Inc. v County of Los Angeles, 719 P2d 987 [Cal. 1986] [in bank] [Dormant Commerce Clause challenge], cert denied 480 US 930 [1987]; but see Indian Oasis-Baboquivari Unified School Dist. 2017RE-82 v. Romer, 161 F.3d 619 , 628-629 [10th Cir.1998] [Supremacy Clause challenge], cert. denied 526 U.S. 1068 , 119 S.Ct. 1461 , 143 L.Ed.2d 546 [1999] ; Rogers v. Brockette, 588 F.2d 1057 , 1067-1071 [5th Cir.1979] [Supremacy Clause challenge]; Star-Kist Foods, Inc. v. County of Los Angeles, 42 Cal.3d 1 , 227 Cal.Rptr. 391 , 719 P.2d 987 [1986 in bank] [Dormant Commerce Clause challenge], cert. denied 480 U.S. 930 , 107 S.Ct. 1565 , 94 L.Ed.2d 758 [1987] ; but see Indian Oasis-Baboquivari Unified Sch.	1	2
United States v. Pinkgreen scotus · 1942 · cited in 2 New York opinions naming this issue, 1982–1985 2 sentences 1985"By virtue of the supremacy clause [US Const, art VI, cl 2] the treaty overrides state methods of serving process abroad that are objectionable to the nation in which the process is served” (DeJames v Magnificence Carriers, supra, pp 288-289; see also, United States v Pink, 315 US 203, 230-231 ). 1982Moreover, although the procedure by which that issue is decided is a matter of State law, the substance of the question “is not to be determined exclusively by the state court”; that phase of the matter the Supreme Court “will review or independently determine” (United States v Pink, 315 US 203, 217 ).	1	2
United States v. Jin Fuey Moygreen scotus · 1916 · cited in 1 New York opinions naming this issue, 2011–2011 2 sentences 2011Luke’s Roosevelt Hosp., 132 F Supp 2d at 267 , quoting United States v Jin Fuey Moy, 241 US 394, 401 [1916]). 2011Luke’s Roosevelt Hosp., 132 F Supp 2d at 267 , quoting United States v Jin Fuey Moy, 241 US 394, 401 [1916]).	1	1
Meehan v. Illinois Power Co.green illappct · 2004 · cited in 1 New York opinions naming this issue, 2007–2007	1	1
Cepeda v. Coughlingreen nyappdiv · 1987 · cited in 1 New York opinions naming this issue, 2007–2007	1	1
National League of Cities v. Useryred scotus · 1976 · cited in 1 New York opinions naming this issue, 1982–1982	1	1
Savage v. Jonesgreen · 1912 · cited in 1 New York opinions naming this issue, 1980–1980	1	1
Flaherty Et Al. v. Arkansasgreen scotus · 1974 · cited in 1 New York opinions naming this issue, 1980–1980	1	1
Mobil Oil Corp. v. Dubnogreen ctd · 1980 · cited in 1 New York opinions naming this issue, 1980–1980	1	1
Schaak v. Schmidtgreen wied · 1971 · cited in 1 New York opinions naming this issue, 1979–1979	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (69)

Case	Cited	Years
Townsend v. Swank green scotus · 1971 2 sentences 1982The State eligibility standard parallels the Federal standard so as not to violate the supremacy clause of the United States Constitution (Townsend v Swank, 404 US 282 ). 1979To the extent that the State statute and regulations conflict with the Social Security Act and regulations thereunder, the former must yield to the latter (Townsend v Swank, 404 US 282, 286 ; Aitchison v Berger, 404 F Supp 1137 , affd 538 F2d 307, cert den 429 US 890 ; Owens v Roberts, 377 F Supp 45, 55 ; Longey v Philbrook, 438 F Supp 264, 267 ; see, also, Schaak v Schmidt, 344 F Supp 99, 103 ; Wilczynski v Harder, 323 F Supp 509 ; Matter of Boines v Lavine, 44 AD2d 765, 766 , lv to app den 34 NY2d 519 , app dsmd 419 US 1040 ).	4	1975–1982
King v. Smith green scotus · 1968 2 sentences 1978Because of its conflict with title VII, the reinstatement of such a height standard would be rendered invalid by the supremacy clause of the United States Constitution (Nash v Florida Ind. Comm., 389 US 235 ; King v Smith, 392 US 309 ; Matter of Battle v Lavine, 44 AD2d 307 ). 1976The United States Supreme Court has held that any State law or regulation imposing terms and conditions inconsistent with the Federal standard is invalid under the supremacy clause of the United States Constitution (King v Smith, 392 US 309 ).	4	1974–1978
Mobil Oil Corp. v. Tully green nynd · 1980 2 sentences 1983On this issue, we agree with the conclusions reached by the United States District Court and the Temporary Emergency Court of Appeals that, for the reasons stated in their opinions (Mobil Oil Corp. v Tully, 499 F Supp 888 , affd 653 F2d 497), the Federal statute and regulations pre-empted the field of price regulation of petroleum products up to the point when the Federal statute expired on September 30, 1981 (see, also, Matter of State of New York v Strong Oil Co., 87 AD2d 374 ). 1981This “anti-pass through” provision was invalidated by the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York, holding that it was in conflict with the supremacy clause (Mobil Oil Corp. v Tully, 499 F Supp 888 ), thereafter, said decision was affirmed by the Temporary Emergency Court of Appeals of the United States (Mobil Oil Corp. v Tully, 653 F2d 497).	3	1980–1983
Oygard v. Town of Coventry green scotus · 1999 2 sentences 2017RE-82 v Romer, 161 F3d 619, 628-629 [10th Cir 1998] [Supremacy Clause challenge], cert denied 526 US 1068 [1999]; Rogers v Brockette, 588 F2d 1057, 1067-1071 [5th Cir 1979] [Supremacy Clause challenge]; Star-Kist Foods, Inc. v County of Los Angeles, 719 P2d 987 [Cal. 1986] [in bank] [Dormant Commerce Clause challenge], cert denied 480 US 930 [1987]; but see Indian Oasis-Baboquivari Unified School Dist. 2017RE-82 v. Romer, 161 F.3d 619 , 628-629 [10th Cir.1998] [Supremacy Clause challenge], cert. denied 526 U.S. 1068 , 119 S.Ct. 1461 , 143 L.Ed.2d 546 [1999] ; Rogers v. Brockette, 588 F.2d 1057 , 1067-1071 [5th Cir.1979] [Supremacy Clause challenge]; Star-Kist Foods, Inc. v. County of Los Angeles, 42 Cal.3d 1 , 227 Cal.Rptr. 391 , 719 P.2d 987 [1986 in bank] [Dormant Commerce Clause challenge], cert. denied 480 U.S. 930 , 107 S.Ct. 1565 , 94 L.Ed.2d 758 [1987] ; but see Indian Oasis-Baboquivari Unified Sch.	2	2017–2017
Indian Oasis-Baboquivari Unified School District No. 40 Of Pima County, Arizona v. Kirk green ca9 · 1996 2 sentences 2017No. 40 of Pima County, Ariz. v Kirk, 91 F3d 1240 , 1242-1243 [9th Cir 1996] [rejecting Supremacy Clause challenge], appeal dismissed en banc 109 F3d 634 [9th Cir 1997]). 2017No. 40 of Pima County, Ariz. v. Kirk, 91 F.3d 1240 , 1242-1243 [9th Cir.1996] [rejecting Supremacy Clause challenge], appeal dismissed 109 F.3d 634 [9th Cir.1997 en banc] ).	2	2017–2017
Star-Kist Foods, Inc. v. County of Los Angeles green cal · 1986 2 sentences 2017RE-82 v. Romer, 161 F.3d 619 , 628-629 [10th Cir.1998] [Supremacy Clause challenge], cert. denied 526 U.S. 1068 , 119 S.Ct. 1461 , 143 L.Ed.2d 546 [1999] ; Rogers v. Brockette, 588 F.2d 1057 , 1067-1071 [5th Cir.1979] [Supremacy Clause challenge]; Star-Kist Foods, Inc. v. County of Los Angeles, 42 Cal.3d 1 , 227 Cal.Rptr. 391 , 719 P.2d 987 [1986 in bank] [Dormant Commerce Clause challenge], cert. denied 480 U.S. 930 , 107 S.Ct. 1565 , 94 L.Ed.2d 758 [1987] ; but see Indian Oasis-Baboquivari Unified Sch. 2017RE-82 v. Romer, 161 F.3d 619 , 628-629 [10th Cir.1998] [Supremacy Clause challenge], cert. denied 526 U.S. 1068 , 119 S.Ct. 1461 , 143 L.Ed.2d 546 [1999] ; Rogers v. Brockette, 588 F.2d 1057 , 1067-1071 [5th Cir.1979] [Supremacy Clause challenge]; Star-Kist Foods, Inc. v. County of Los Angeles, 42 Cal.3d 1 , 227 Cal.Rptr. 391 , 719 P.2d 987 [1986 in bank] [Dormant Commerce Clause challenge], cert. denied 480 U.S. 930 , 107 S.Ct. 1565 , 94 L.Ed.2d 758 [1987] ; but see Indian Oasis-Baboquivari Unified Sch.	2	2017–2017
Indian Oasis-Baboquivari Unified School District No. 40 Of Pima County, Arizona v. Kirk green ca9 · 1997 2 sentences 2017No. 40 of Pima County, Ariz. v Kirk, 91 F3d 1240 , 1242-1243 [9th Cir 1996] [rejecting Supremacy Clause challenge], appeal dismissed en banc 109 F3d 634 [9th Cir 1997]). 2017No. 40 of Pima County, Ariz. v. Kirk, 91 F.3d 1240 , 1242-1243 [9th Cir.1996] [rejecting Supremacy Clause challenge], appeal dismissed 109 F.3d 634 [9th Cir.1997 en banc] ).	2	2017–2017
Nielsen v. Utah green scotus · 1987 2 sentences 2017RE-82 v Romer, 161 F3d 619, 628-629 [10th Cir 1998] [Supremacy Clause challenge], cert denied 526 US 1068 [1999]; Rogers v Brockette, 588 F2d 1057, 1067-1071 [5th Cir 1979] [Supremacy Clause challenge]; Star-Kist Foods, Inc. v County of Los Angeles, 719 P2d 987 [Cal. 1986] [in bank] [Dormant Commerce Clause challenge], cert denied 480 US 930 [1987]; but see Indian Oasis-Baboquivari Unified School Dist. 2017RE-82 v. Romer, 161 F.3d 619 , 628-629 [10th Cir.1998] [Supremacy Clause challenge], cert. denied 526 U.S. 1068 , 119 S.Ct. 1461 , 143 L.Ed.2d 546 [1999] ; Rogers v. Brockette, 588 F.2d 1057 , 1067-1071 [5th Cir.1979] [Supremacy Clause challenge]; Star-Kist Foods, Inc. v. County of Los Angeles, 42 Cal.3d 1 , 227 Cal.Rptr. 391 , 719 P.2d 987 [1986 in bank] [Dormant Commerce Clause challenge], cert. denied 480 U.S. 930 , 107 S.Ct. 1565 , 94 L.Ed.2d 758 [1987] ; but see Indian Oasis-Baboquivari Unified Sch.	2	2017–2017
Hines v. Davidowitz green scotus · 1941 2 sentences 1984Under the doctrine of pre-emption, direct conflict is unnecessary; a State law which has a valid purpose, may be invalid where its effect is to pose an “obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.” (Hines v Davidowitz, 312 US 52, 67 .) The current trend in the United States Supreme Court has been away from pre-empting the States in the absence of a clear Congressional mandate to that effect. 1980Our inquiry, therefore, focuses on whether the State statute at issue "stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress” (Hines v Davidowitz, 312 US 52, 66-67 ; see Savage v Jones, 225 US 501, 533 ; Nettleton Co. v Diamond, 27 NY2d 182, 190-191 ).	2	1980–1984
Perez. v. Campbell green scotus · 1971 2 sentences 1984(See, e.g., Perez v Campbell, 402 US 637 .) Under the supremacy clause, a State law is invalid when it conflicts directly with Federal law, thus rendering compliance with both impossible. 1984(See, e.g., Perez v Campbell, 402 US 637 .) Under the supremacy clause, a State law is invalid when it conflicts directly with Federal law, thus rendering compliance with both impossible.	2	1974–1984
People v. Castronova green nyappdiv · 1974 2 sentences 1979(Townsend v Swank, 404 US 282, 286 ; Aitchison v Berger, 404 F Supp 1137 , affd 538 F2d 307, cert den 429 US 890 ; Matter of Boines v Lavine, 44 AD2d 765, 766 , mot for lv to app den 34 NY2d 519 , app dsmd 419 US 1040 .) A State may, however, for whatever reason, adopt programs that are more liberal than those set forth in the Federal guidelines and carry the costs of such programs without Federal reimbursement. 1979To the extent that the State statute and regulations conflict with the Social Security Act and regulations thereunder, the former must yield to the latter (Townsend v Swank, 404 US 282, 286 ; Aitchison v Berger, 404 F Supp 1137 , affd 538 F2d 307, cert den 429 US 890 ; Owens v Roberts, 377 F Supp 45, 55 ; Longey v Philbrook, 438 F Supp 264, 267 ; see, also, Schaak v Schmidt, 344 F Supp 99, 103 ; Wilczynski v Harder, 323 F Supp 509 ; Matter of Boines v Lavine, 44 AD2d 765, 766 , lv to app den 34 NY2d 519 , app dsmd 419 US 1040 ).	2	1979–1979
Aitchison v. Berger green nysd · 1975 2 sentences 1979(Townsend v Swank, 404 US 282, 286 ; Aitchison v Berger, 404 F Supp 1137 , affd 538 F2d 307, cert den 429 US 890 ; Matter of Boines v Lavine, 44 AD2d 765, 766 , mot for lv to app den 34 NY2d 519 , app dsmd 419 US 1040 .) A State may, however, for whatever reason, adopt programs that are more liberal than those set forth in the Federal guidelines and carry the costs of such programs without Federal reimbursement. 1979To the extent that the State statute and regulations conflict with the Social Security Act and regulations thereunder, the former must yield to the latter (Townsend v Swank, 404 US 282, 286 ; Aitchison v Berger, 404 F Supp 1137 , affd 538 F2d 307, cert den 429 US 890 ; Owens v Roberts, 377 F Supp 45, 55 ; Longey v Philbrook, 438 F Supp 264, 267 ; see, also, Schaak v Schmidt, 344 F Supp 99, 103 ; Wilczynski v Harder, 323 F Supp 509 ; Matter of Boines v Lavine, 44 AD2d 765, 766 , lv to app den 34 NY2d 519 , app dsmd 419 US 1040 ).	2	1979–1979
Place v. Weinberger green scotus · 1974 2 sentences 1979(Townsend v Swank, 404 US 282, 286 ; Aitchison v Berger, 404 F Supp 1137 , affd 538 F2d 307, cert den 429 US 890 ; Matter of Boines v Lavine, 44 AD2d 765, 766 , mot for lv to app den 34 NY2d 519 , app dsmd 419 US 1040 .) A State may, however, for whatever reason, adopt programs that are more liberal than those set forth in the Federal guidelines and carry the costs of such programs without Federal reimbursement. 1979To the extent that the State statute and regulations conflict with the Social Security Act and regulations thereunder, the former must yield to the latter (Townsend v Swank, 404 US 282, 286 ; Aitchison v Berger, 404 F Supp 1137 , affd 538 F2d 307, cert den 429 US 890 ; Owens v Roberts, 377 F Supp 45, 55 ; Longey v Philbrook, 438 F Supp 264, 267 ; see, also, Schaak v Schmidt, 344 F Supp 99, 103 ; Wilczynski v Harder, 323 F Supp 509 ; Matter of Boines v Lavine, 44 AD2d 765, 766 , lv to app den 34 NY2d 519 , app dsmd 419 US 1040 ).	2	1979–1979
Socialist Workers Party v. United States green scotus · 1976 2 sentences 1979(Townsend v Swank, 404 US 282, 286 ; Aitchison v Berger, 404 F Supp 1137 , affd 538 F2d 307, cert den 429 US 890 ; Matter of Boines v Lavine, 44 AD2d 765, 766 , mot for lv to app den 34 NY2d 519 , app dsmd 419 US 1040 .) A State may, however, for whatever reason, adopt programs that are more liberal than those set forth in the Federal guidelines and carry the costs of such programs without Federal reimbursement. 1979To the extent that the State statute and regulations conflict with the Social Security Act and regulations thereunder, the former must yield to the latter (Townsend v Swank, 404 US 282, 286 ; Aitchison v Berger, 404 F Supp 1137 , affd 538 F2d 307, cert den 429 US 890 ; Owens v Roberts, 377 F Supp 45, 55 ; Longey v Philbrook, 438 F Supp 264, 267 ; see, also, Schaak v Schmidt, 344 F Supp 99, 103 ; Wilczynski v Harder, 323 F Supp 509 ; Matter of Boines v Lavine, 44 AD2d 765, 766 , lv to app den 34 NY2d 519 , app dsmd 419 US 1040 ).	2	1979–1979
In Re Grand Jury Subpoena for the Production of Certain New York State Sales Tax Records green nywd · 1974 2 sentences 1977Although that decision was based in part on the supremacy clause of the United States Constitution, the following language leaves no doubt that it was also based upon the supremacy of the Grand Jury’s authority (Matter of New York State Sales Tax Records, 382 F Supp 1205, 1206 , supra): "the State has misconceived * * * the purpose of its own nondisclosure law, which is to prevent dissemination of confidential information to unauthorized persons * * * Section 1146(a) provides that the nondisclosure prohibition is not applicable when the tax commission acts in accordance with a proper judicial 1977While the court in Matter of New York State Sales Tax Records ( 382 F Supp 1205 ) made passing reference to the fact that a Federal Grand Jury subpoena was a "proper judicial order”, its denial of the motion to quash was based primarily upon its conclusion that the supremacy clause of the United States Constitution must prevail over any nondisclosure provision of the New York State Tax Law.	2	1977–1977
Murphy v. Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor red scotus · 1964 2 sentences 1972(Matter of Parker, 411 F. 2d 1067 ; Carter v. United States, 417 F. 2d 384 ; United States v. George, 444 F. 2d 310 .) The foregoing authorities require a dismissal of this indictment and there is nothing in Murphy v. Waterfront Comm. ( 378 U. S. 52 ) or Kastigar v. United States ( 406 U. S. 441 , supra) which would require or eveíí allow a contrary conclusion. 1972The foregoing authorities require a dismissal of this indictment; and there is nothing in Murphy v. Waterfront Comm. ( 378 U. S. 52 ) or Kastigar v. United States (supra) which would require or even allow a contrary conclusion.	2	1972–1972
In the Matter of the Grand Jury and Susan Marie Parker green ca10 · 1969 2 sentences 1972(Matter of Parker, 411 F. 2d 1067 ; Carter v. United States, 417 F. 2d 384 ; United States v. George, 444 F. 2d 310 .) The foregoing authorities require a dismissal of this indictment and there is nothing in Murphy v. Waterfront Comm. ( 378 U. S. 52 ) or Kastigar v. United States ( 406 U. S. 441 , supra) which would require or eveíí allow a contrary conclusion. 1972Section 2514 itself has been authoritatively held to be a constitutional exercise of Congressional power under the supremacy clause of the Constitution and, as such, capable of precluding State as well as Federal prosecution of an immunized witness for any crime to which his testimony referred (Matter of Parker, 411 F. 2d 1067 ; Carter v. United States, 417 F. 2d 384 ; United States v. George, 444 F. 2d 310 ).	2	1972–1972
Larry Carter, Steve Shead, and Fred Crawford v. United States green ca9 · 1969 2 sentences 1972(Matter of Parker, 411 F. 2d 1067 ; Carter v. United States, 417 F. 2d 384 ; United States v. George, 444 F. 2d 310 .) The foregoing authorities require a dismissal of this indictment and there is nothing in Murphy v. Waterfront Comm. ( 378 U. S. 52 ) or Kastigar v. United States ( 406 U. S. 441 , supra) which would require or eveíí allow a contrary conclusion. 1972Section 2514 itself has been authoritatively held to be a constitutional exercise of Congressional power under the supremacy clause of the Constitution and, as such, capable of precluding State as well as Federal prosecution of an immunized witness for any crime to which his testimony referred (Matter of Parker, 411 F. 2d 1067 ; Carter v. United States, 417 F. 2d 384 ; United States v. George, 444 F. 2d 310 ).	2	1972–1972
United States v. Thomas George green ca6 · 1971 2 sentences 1972(Matter of Parker, 411 F. 2d 1067 ; Carter v. United States, 417 F. 2d 384 ; United States v. George, 444 F. 2d 310 .) The foregoing authorities require a dismissal of this indictment and there is nothing in Murphy v. Waterfront Comm. ( 378 U. S. 52 ) or Kastigar v. United States ( 406 U. S. 441 , supra) which would require or eveíí allow a contrary conclusion. 1972Section 2514 itself has been authoritatively held to be a constitutional exercise of Congressional power under the supremacy clause of the Constitution and, as such, capable of precluding State as well as Federal prosecution of an immunized witness for any crime to which his testimony referred (Matter of Parker, 411 F. 2d 1067 ; Carter v. United States, 417 F. 2d 384 ; United States v. George, 444 F. 2d 310 ).	2	1972–1972
Testa v. Katt green scotus · 1947 2 sentences 1950(Sola Electric Co. v. Jefferson Electric Co., 317 U. S. 173, 176 ; Case v. Bowles, 327 U. S. 92, 102 ; Testa v. Katt, 330 U. S. 386, 393 ; Fleming v. Rhodes, 331 U. S. 100, 107 ; Wasservogel v. Meyerowitz, 300 N. Y. 125, 134 .) In the case last cited the Court of Appeals held: ‘ ‘ And not only have our courts, under our own decisions, no power to revise or invalidate this Federal determination, but we are, by the supremacy clause (art. 1949VI) of the Federal Constitution, put under a positive duty to enforce it, in these appropriate proceedings (Testa v. Katt, 330 U. S. 386 ).	2	1949–1950
BSW Development Group v. City of Dayton green scotus · 1999 1 sentence 2017RE-82 v. Romer, 161 F.3d 619 , 628-629 [10th Cir.1998] [Supremacy Clause challenge], cert. denied 526 U.S. 1068 , 119 S.Ct. 1461 , 143 L.Ed.2d 546 [1999] ; Rogers v. Brockette, 588 F.2d 1057 , 1067-1071 [5th Cir.1979] [Supremacy Clause challenge]; Star-Kist Foods, Inc. v. County of Los Angeles, 42 Cal.3d 1 , 227 Cal.Rptr. 391 , 719 P.2d 987 [1986 in bank] [Dormant Commerce Clause challenge], cert. denied 480 U.S. 930 , 107 S.Ct. 1565 , 94 L.Ed.2d 758 [1987] ; but see Indian Oasis-Baboquivari Unified Sch.	1	2017–2017
Mantle v. Mantle green scotus · 1999 1 sentence 2017RE-82 v. Romer, 161 F.3d 619 , 628-629 [10th Cir.1998] [Supremacy Clause challenge], cert. denied 526 U.S. 1068 , 119 S.Ct. 1461 , 143 L.Ed.2d 546 [1999] ; Rogers v. Brockette, 588 F.2d 1057 , 1067-1071 [5th Cir.1979] [Supremacy Clause challenge]; Star-Kist Foods, Inc. v. County of Los Angeles, 42 Cal.3d 1 , 227 Cal.Rptr. 391 , 719 P.2d 987 [1986 in bank] [Dormant Commerce Clause challenge], cert. denied 480 U.S. 930 , 107 S.Ct. 1565 , 94 L.Ed.2d 758 [1987] ; but see Indian Oasis-Baboquivari Unified Sch.	1	2017–2017
Heinemann v. United States green scotus · 1987 1 sentence 2017RE-82 v. Romer, 161 F.3d 619 , 628-629 [10th Cir.1998] [Supremacy Clause challenge], cert. denied 526 U.S. 1068 , 119 S.Ct. 1461 , 143 L.Ed.2d 546 [1999] ; Rogers v. Brockette, 588 F.2d 1057 , 1067-1071 [5th Cir.1979] [Supremacy Clause challenge]; Star-Kist Foods, Inc. v. County of Los Angeles, 42 Cal.3d 1 , 227 Cal.Rptr. 391 , 719 P.2d 987 [1986 in bank] [Dormant Commerce Clause challenge], cert. denied 480 U.S. 930 , 107 S.Ct. 1565 , 94 L.Ed.2d 758 [1987] ; but see Indian Oasis-Baboquivari Unified Sch.	1	2017–2017
Dr. Ronnie Rogers v. Dr. M. L. Brockette green ca5 · 1979 1 sentence 2017RE-82 v. Romer, 161 F.3d 619 , 628-629 [10th Cir.1998] [Supremacy Clause challenge], cert. denied 526 U.S. 1068 , 119 S.Ct. 1461 , 143 L.Ed.2d 546 [1999] ; Rogers v. Brockette, 588 F.2d 1057 , 1067-1071 [5th Cir.1979] [Supremacy Clause challenge]; Star-Kist Foods, Inc. v. County of Los Angeles, 42 Cal.3d 1 , 227 Cal.Rptr. 391 , 719 P.2d 987 [1986 in bank] [Dormant Commerce Clause challenge], cert. denied 480 U.S. 930 , 107 S.Ct. 1565 , 94 L.Ed.2d 758 [1987] ; but see Indian Oasis-Baboquivari Unified Sch.	1	2017–2017
Blue Cross Ass'n v. Department of Health & Human Services green scotus · 1987 1 sentence 2017RE-82 v. Romer, 161 F.3d 619 , 628-629 [10th Cir.1998] [Supremacy Clause challenge], cert. denied 526 U.S. 1068 , 119 S.Ct. 1461 , 143 L.Ed.2d 546 [1999] ; Rogers v. Brockette, 588 F.2d 1057 , 1067-1071 [5th Cir.1979] [Supremacy Clause challenge]; Star-Kist Foods, Inc. v. County of Los Angeles, 42 Cal.3d 1 , 227 Cal.Rptr. 391 , 719 P.2d 987 [1986 in bank] [Dormant Commerce Clause challenge], cert. denied 480 U.S. 930 , 107 S.Ct. 1565 , 94 L.Ed.2d 758 [1987] ; but see Indian Oasis-Baboquivari Unified Sch.	1	2017–2017
Collette v. St. Luke's Roosevelt Hospital green nysd · 2001 2 sentences 2011Luke’s Roosevelt Hosp., 132 F Supp 2d at 267 , quoting United States v Jin Fuey Moy, 241 US 394, 401 [1916]). 2011Luke’s Roosevelt Hosp., 132 F Supp 2d at 267 , quoting United States v Jin Fuey Moy, 241 US 394, 401 [1916]).	1	2011–2011
Martin v. Wilks green scotus · 1988	1	2011–2011
McKnett v. St. Louis & San Francisco Railway Co. green scotus · 1934	1	2007–2007
Murnan v. Wabash Railway Co. green ny · 1927	1	2007–2007
Woodward v. State green nyappdiv · 2005	1	2007–2007
Blum v. Bacon green scotus · 1982	1	1986–1986
Scarpuzza v. Blum green nyappdiv · 1980	1	1985–1985
Goines v. Rockefeller green wvsd · 1972	1	1984–1984
Chicago & North Western Transportation Co. v. Kalo Brick & Tile Co. green scotus · 1981	1	1984–1984
Maryland v. Louisiana green scotus · 1981	1	1984–1984
In re the Estate of Davis green ny · 1982	1	1984–1984
State v. Strong Oil Co. green nyappdiv · 1982	1	1983–1983
Bigness v. Obit green nycfamct · 1982	1	1983–1983
Manufacturers Trust Co. v. Browne green nyappdiv · 1945	1	1982–1982
Parker v. Brown green scotus · 1943	1	1982–1982

Where else courts name it

CA 325 (1960–2026) IL 147 (1953–2026) WA 58 (1953–2024) NY 55 (1949–2017) TX 51 (1976–2024) CT 49 (1974–2022) NJ 27 (1963–2026) MA 27 (1954–2023) FL 25 (1960–2017) PA 24 (1944–2014) MI 23 (1962–2022) WI 20 (1970–2016) MO 19 (1970–2019) LA 17 (1966–2020) IA 16 (1966–2018) CO 16 (1970–2026) NM 16 (1958–2021) IN 14 (1978–2016) MN 12 (1974–2017) AZ 11 (1970–2022) WV 11 (1987–2026) AR 11 (1988–2025) MD 11 (1965–2021) MT 10 (1979–2009) NV 10 (1965–2019) RI 10 (1945–2015) ID 9 (1974–1988) KS 9 (1981–2026) OH 9 (1948–2017) NE 9 (1983–2017) AK 9 (1970–2003) NC 8 (1950–2022) TN 8 (1956–1993) AL 8 (1964–1995) ND 8 (1979–2015) ME 8 (1970–2011) OK 8 (1979–2020) UT 7 (1976–2017) KY 6 (1980–2026) NH 6 (1948–1995) GA 6 (1981–2024) OR 5 (1973–2024) VA 4 (1991–2009) VT 3 (2000–2014) HI 3 (1980–2017) SC 3 (1989–2021) MS 2 (1966–1970) DC 2 (1981–1992) WY 2 (1985–2003) SD 2 (1985–2010)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check