51 Texas opinions name it 4 courts 1976–2024 4 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Texas 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 |
|---|---|---|
Trahan v. Trahangreen2 sentences1986Trahan v. Trahan, 626 S.W.2d 485 (Tex.1981). 1983In Trahan v. Trahan, 626 S.W.2d 485, 487 (Tex.1981), the Supreme Court of Texas held that the supremacy clause effectively foreclosed the division of such military retirement benefits. | 4 | 5 |
Gibbons v. Ogdengreen2 sentences2024App. 1991) (“The doctrine of preemption is based upon the supremacy clause of the United States Constitution, Article VI, cl. 2, which invalidates state laws that ‘interfere with, or are contrary to,’ federal law. (quoting Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1, 82 (1824))). 2024App. 1991) (“The doctrine of preemption is based upon the supremacy clause of the United States Constitution, Article VI, cl. 2, which invalidates state laws that ‘interfere with, or are contrary to,’ federal law. (quoting Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1, 82 (1824))). | 3 | 3 |
Sabine Consolidated, Inc. v. Stategreen2 sentences2022See Sabine Consolidated, Inc. v. State, 806 S.W.2d 553 , 555–60 (Tex. Crim. 2022See Sabine Consolidated, Inc. v. State, 806 S.W.2d 553 , 555–60 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
Hammer v. Stategreen2 sentences2015Where possible, inconsistency is to be removed by reasonable construction.”). 24 Hammer v. State, 296 S.W.3d 555, 561 (Tex. Crim. 2015Where possible, inconsistency is to be removed by reasonable construction.”). 24 Hammer v. State, 296 S.W.3d 555, 561 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
Boggs v. Boggsgreen2 sentences2003See, e.g., Boggs v. Boggs, 520 U.S. 833, 844 , 117 S.Ct. 1754 , 138 L.Ed.2d 45 (1997). 2003See, e.g., Boggs v. Boggs, 520 U.S. 833, 844 , 117 S.Ct. 1754 , 138 L.Ed.2d 45 (1997). | 2 | 2 |
Maryland v. Louisianagreen2 sentences1999See Mary *655 land, 451 U.S. at 746-47 , 101 S.Ct. 2114 . 1999See Mary *655 land, 451 U.S. at 746-47 , 101 S.Ct. 2114 . | 2 | 2 |
Ridgway v. Ridgwaygreen2 sentences1995See Ridgway v. Ridgway, 454 U.S. *118 46, 102 S.Ct. 49 , 70 L.Ed.2d 39 (1981). 1995See Ridgway v. Ridgway, 454 U.S. *118 46, 102 S.Ct. 49 , 70 L.Ed.2d 39 (1981). | 2 | 2 |
United States v. Yazellgreen2 sentences1992See United States v. Yazell, 382 U.S. 341, 352 , 86 S.Ct. 500, 506-07 , 15 L.Ed.2d 404 (1966). 1992See United States v. Yazell, 382 U.S. 341, 352 , 86 S.Ct. 500, 506-07 , 15 L.Ed.2d 404 (1966). | 2 | 2 |
Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc.green2 sentences1995A. Preemption The doctrine of federal preemption is rooted in the supremacy clause of Article VI of the United States Constitution, which provides that the laws of the United States “shall be supreme Law of the Land; ... any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., — U.S. -, -, 112 S.Ct. 2608, 2617 , 120 L.Ed.2d 407 (1992); Moore v. Brunswick, 889 S.W.2d 246, 247 (Tex.1994). 1995A. Preemption The doctrine of federal preemption is rooted in the supremacy clause of Article VI of the United States Constitution, which provides that the laws of the United States “shall be supreme Law of the Land; ... any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., — U.S. -, -, 112 S.Ct. 2608, 2617 , 120 L.Ed.2d 407 (1992); Moore v. Brunswick, 889 S.W.2d 246, 247 (Tex.1994). | 1 | 2 |
Antoine v. Washingtongreen2 sentences1981See Antoine v. Washington, 420 U.S. 194 (1975). 1981Moreover, the supremacy clause of the United States Constitution would prohibit the custodian from following the Open Records Act where it conflicts with the copyright law. -See Antoine v. Washington, 420 U.S. 194 (19751 P* 980 Honorable James E. | 1 | 2 |
City of Hugo v. Nicholsgreen1 sentence2018See City of Hugo v. Nichols , 656 F.3d 1251 , 1256 (10th Cir. 2011) (recognizing a political subdivision's right to sue its creator under the Supremacy Clause but not as an individual liberty interest); S. Macomb Disposal Auth. v. Twp. of Washington , 790 F.2d 500 , 504-05 (6th Cir. 1986) (suggesting Supremacy Clause claim allowed); United States v. Alabama, 791 F.2d 1450 , 1454-55 (11th Cir. 1986) (Fourteenth Amendment claims barred); Rogers v. Brockette , 588 F.2d 1057 , 1070 (5th Cir. 1979) ("[T]he Constitution does not interfere with a state's internal political organization."); City of Al | 1 | 1 |
Dr. Ronnie Rogers v. Dr. M. L. Brockettegreen2 sentences2018See City of Hugo v. Nichols , 656 F.3d 1251 , 1256 (10th Cir. 2011) (recognizing a political subdivision's right to sue its creator under the Supremacy Clause but not as an individual liberty interest); S. Macomb Disposal Auth. v. Twp. of Washington , 790 F.2d 500 , 504-05 (6th Cir. 1986) (suggesting Supremacy Clause claim allowed); United States v. Alabama, 791 F.2d 1450 , 1454-55 (11th Cir. 1986) (Fourteenth Amendment claims barred); Rogers v. Brockette , 588 F.2d 1057 , 1070 (5th Cir. 1979) ("[T]he Constitution does not interfere with a state's internal political organization."); City of Al 2018Id. at 1060 . | 1 | 1 |
Thomas v. Bushgreen2 sentences2016Thomas v. Bush, 23 S.W.3d 215, 217-18 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 2000, pet. denied). 2016Thomas v. Bush, 23 S.W.3d 215, 217-18 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 2000, pet. denied). | 1 | 1 |
Rose Dionne, Etc. v. Gerard Bouley, Etc., Rose Dionne, Etc. v. Gerard Bouley, Etc.green1 sentence2015Dionne v. Bouley, 757 F.2d 1344, 1354 (1st Cir. 1985) (social security account was exempt from attachment, procedural issues that prevented access to the account violated due process right and perhaps even the 11 See Storer's Motion to Quash Writs of Garnishment, Tab 4, ~'s 11-29; Tab 7, at p. 5, Ins. 2-17; at p. 11, Ins. 2-4; at p. 18, Ins. 9-23; Tab 8, at p. 5, Ins. 20-25; at p. 6, Ins. 1-24; Tab 14, at p. 9; Tab 12 and Tab 15. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Woodsgreen2 sentences2008R EV . 381, 427-35 (2002). 20 432 F.2d 1072 (7th Cir. 1970). 21 Id. at 1073. 22 Id. 23 Id. at 1074-75. 6 The Supreme Court of the United States has appellate jurisdiction over federal questions arising either in state or federal proceedings, and by reason of the supremacy clause the decisions of that court on national law have binding effect on all lower courts whether state or federal. 2008R EV . 381, 427-35 (2002). 20 432 F.2d 1072 (7th Cir. 1970). 21 Id. at 1073. 22 Id. 23 Id. at 1074-75. 6 The Supreme Court of the United States has appellate jurisdiction over federal questions arising either in state or federal proceedings, and by reason of the supremacy clause the decisions of that court on national law have binding effect on all lower courts whether state or federal. | 1 | 1 |
CSX Transportation, Inc. v. City of Plymouthgreen1 sentence2006See CSX Transp., Inc. v. City of Plymouth, 92 F.Supp.2d 643, 647 (E.D.Mich.2000) (as result of Supremacy Clause, “where a state law conflicts with or frustrates a federal law, the former must yield”). | 1 | 1 |
Moore v. Brunswick Bowling & Billiards Corp.green1 sentence1995A. Preemption The doctrine of federal preemption is rooted in the supremacy clause of Article VI of the United States Constitution, which provides that the laws of the United States “shall be supreme Law of the Land; ... any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., — U.S. -, -, 112 S.Ct. 2608, 2617 , 120 L.Ed.2d 407 (1992); Moore v. Brunswick, 889 S.W.2d 246, 247 (Tex.1994). | 1 | 1 |
| English v. General Electric Co.green | 1 | 1 |
| Carlsen v. Statered | 1 | 1 |
| Norrell v. National Motor Club of Texas, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Nicholson v. National Motor Club of Texas, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Langford v. Kraftgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Southwestern Greyhound Lines, Inc. v. Railroad Commissiongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Paddock v. Siemoneitgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Los Alamos School Board v. Wugaltergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Matuszak v. Houston Oilers, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Hill v. Hillgreen | 1 | 1 |
| In Re Marriage of Jacaningreen | 1 | 1 |
| Dedon v. Dedongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Dravo Corporation v. Maxingreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
McCarty v. McCarty
red
2 sentences1984McCarty v. McCarty, 453 U.S. 210 , 101 S.Ct. 2728, 2738 , 69 L.Ed.2d 589 (1981) held that the supremacy clause in Article VI of the United States Constitution "preempts” state courts from dividing nondisability military retirement pay pursuant to state community property laws. 1984McCarty v. McCarty, 453 U.S. 210 , 101 S.Ct. 2728, 2738 , 69 L.Ed.2d 589 (1981) held that the supremacy clause in Article VI of the United States Constitution "preempts” state courts from dividing nondisability military retirement pay pursuant to state community property laws. | 4 | 1982–1987 |
Perry v. Thomas
green
2 sentences2015Perry, 482 U.S. at 492 n.9; see Jack B. 2014Perry, 482 U.S. at 492 n. 9, 107 S.Ct. 2520 ; see S.W.2d 4, 6 (1939) (citations omitted). | 2 | 2014–2015 |
Eichelberger v. Eichelberger
green
2 sentences1980In Eichelberger v. Eichelberger, 582 S.W.2d 395 (Tex.1979), the Texas Supreme Court held that it was bound by the Hisquierdo decision, and that the award of 40% of the husband’s railroad retirement benefits to the wife as a division of the property of the parties was erroneous. 1979This holding was cited with approval in Hisquierdo v. Hisquierdo, supra. In Eichelberger v. Eichelberger, 582 S.W.2d 395 (Tex.1979), we were presented with the question of whether the supremacy clause of the United States Constitution preempted a division of a spouse’s entitlement to benefits under the Railroad Retirement Act. | 2 | 1979–1980 |
United States v. The State Of Alabama
green
1 sentence2018See City of Hugo v. Nichols , 656 F.3d 1251 , 1256 (10th Cir. 2011) (recognizing a political subdivision's right to sue its creator under the Supremacy Clause but not as an individual liberty interest); S. Macomb Disposal Auth. v. Twp. of Washington , 790 F.2d 500 , 504-05 (6th Cir. 1986) (suggesting Supremacy Clause claim allowed); United States v. Alabama, 791 F.2d 1450 , 1454-55 (11th Cir. 1986) (Fourteenth Amendment claims barred); Rogers v. Brockette , 588 F.2d 1057 , 1070 (5th Cir. 1979) ("[T]he Constitution does not interfere with a state's internal political organization."); City of Al | 1 | 2018–2018 |
South MacOmb Disposal Authority v. Township of Washington
green
1 sentence2018See City of Hugo v. Nichols , 656 F.3d 1251 , 1256 (10th Cir. 2011) (recognizing a political subdivision's right to sue its creator under the Supremacy Clause but not as an individual liberty interest); S. Macomb Disposal Auth. v. Twp. of Washington , 790 F.2d 500 , 504-05 (6th Cir. 1986) (suggesting Supremacy Clause claim allowed); United States v. Alabama, 791 F.2d 1450 , 1454-55 (11th Cir. 1986) (Fourteenth Amendment claims barred); Rogers v. Brockette , 588 F.2d 1057 , 1070 (5th Cir. 1979) ("[T]he Constitution does not interfere with a state's internal political organization."); City of Al | 1 | 2018–2018 |
City of Bristol, VA v. Earley
green
1 sentence2018Tex. 2010) (noting that political subdivisions of a state are not protected by the Due Process Clause); City of Bristol v. Earley , 145 F.Supp.2d 741 , 744 (W.D. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
City of Alpine v. Abbot
green
1 sentence2018See City of Hugo v. Nichols , 656 F.3d 1251 , 1256 (10th Cir. 2011) (recognizing a political subdivision's right to sue its creator under the Supremacy Clause but not as an individual liberty interest); S. Macomb Disposal Auth. v. Twp. of Washington , 790 F.2d 500 , 504-05 (6th Cir. 1986) (suggesting Supremacy Clause claim allowed); United States v. Alabama, 791 F.2d 1450 , 1454-55 (11th Cir. 1986) (Fourteenth Amendment claims barred); Rogers v. Brockette , 588 F.2d 1057 , 1070 (5th Cir. 1979) ("[T]he Constitution does not interfere with a state's internal political organization."); City of Al | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Kroger Co. v. Keng
green
1 sentence2015State courts, construe the statute in a manner that supplies by implica- bound by the FAA [**18] under the supremacy clause, tion restrictions on an employee's rights that are not found have more limited power, as the FAA preempts state laws in . . . [the] plain language." Kroger, 23 S.W.3d at 349 . that specifically disfavor arbitration. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Huffman v. Southern Underwriters
green
1 sentence2014FAA under the supremacy clause, have more limited power, [l]aw, in order to effectuate the purposes for which it was as the FAA preempts state laws that specifically disfavor enacted.” Huffman v. S. Underwriters, 133 Tex. 354 , 128 arbitration. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Fidelity Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. De La Cuesta
green
1 sentence1996The statutes thus would violate the supremacy clause of the United States Constitution,t2 which re- quires inconsistent state laws to yield to valid federal laws and mgulationsts We must presume, however, that the legislature intends its enactments to be wnstitutional.t4 Fiiy, we must distinguish our wncluaion and Attorney General Opiion JM-1260, in which we concluded that minimumstandards adopted by the commission ap- ply to a municipaljail operated by a private vendor under Local Government Code chapter 361.15 The requestor in that instance was not wncemed with penal and wrrectional insti- t | 1 | 1996–1996 |
M'culloch v. State of Maryland
green
2 sentences1995Thus, since McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316, 427 , 4 L.Ed. 579 (1819), it has been settled that state law that conflicts with federal law is “without effect.” Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., — U.S. at -, 112 S.Ct. at 2617 (1992). 1995Thus, since McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316, 427 , 4 L.Ed. 579 (1819), it has been settled that state law that conflicts with federal law is “without effect.” Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., — U.S. at -, 112 S.Ct. at 2617 (1992). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Jack B. Anglin Co., Inc. v. Tipps
green
1 sentence1995VI. el. 2; Anglin, 842 S.W.2d at 266 . | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Alabama-Coushatta Indian Tribe of Texas v. Mattox
neutral
1 sentence1991Alabama-Coushatta Indian Tribe of Texas v. Mattox, 650 F. Supp. 282 , 289 (W.D.Tex. 1986). 10 As the Senate Report states, there were serious difficulties with an arrangement, whereby a department of the federal executive branch . . . was in a position to influence, by funding decisions, programs undertaken by or on behalf of state and local courts. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| Capital Cities Cable, Inc. v. Crisp green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| National City Lines, Inc. v. Llc Corporation green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| Malone v. White Motor Corp. green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| Board of Supervisors v. Kirksey green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| Los Alamos School Board v. Wugalter green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| Zola v. City of Waverly green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| Ex Parte Johnson green | 1 | 1981–1981 |
| United States v. Dallas Nat. Bank green | 1 | 1979–1979 |
| Baltimore & Ohio Railroad v. Kepner green | 1 | 1979–1979 |
| Wissner v. Wissner green | 1 | 1979–1979 |
| Hisquierdo v. Hisquierdo green | 1 | 1979–1979 |
| Hines v. Davidowitz green | 1 | 1977–1977 |
| Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp. green | 1 | 1977–1977 |
| Evans v. S. S. Kresge Co. green | 1 | 1977–1977 |
| United States v. Pink green | 1 | 1976–1976 |
| Perez. v. Campbell green | 1 | 1976–1976 |
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.