6 Maine opinions name it 1 courts 1989–2025 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Maine 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 |
|---|---|---|
Morales v. Trans World Airlines, Inc.green1 sentence2025The Supreme Court has recognized that “the phrase ‘relate to’ in a preemption clause ‘express[es] a broad pre-emptive purpose.’” Coventry Health Care of Mo., Inc. v. Nevils, 581 U.S. 87 , 95-96 (2017) (quoting Morales v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 504 U.S. 374, 383 (1992)). | 1 | 1 |
Mazariegos-Paiz v. Holdergreen1 sentence2024Comm’n, 2012 ME 36, ¶ 24 , 39 A.3d 74 ; see Mazariegos–Paiz v. Holder, 734 F.3d 57, 62 (1st Cir. 2013) (“Were the court free to delve into the merits of issues not presented to the agency, it would effectively usurp the agency’s function.”). | 1 | 1 |
Bishop v. Bell Atlantic Corp.green1 sentence2021The Court attempts to distinguish the leading Supreme Court cases on the basis that “section 837 introduces to the section 301 preemption analysis a potentially countervailing element absent from the Supreme Court decisions in Lueck, Lingle, and Hawaiian Airlines.” Court’s Opinion ¶ 29. [¶49] Bishop v. Bell Atlantic Corp. was the beginning of a series of cases from the United States District Court for the District of Maine that narrowly construed the preemption doctrine to hold that claims under the WPA were essentially preempted if a CBA existed because section 837 was included in the Act. 81 | 1 | 1 |
National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation v. Public Service Commission Of The State Of New Yorkgreen1 sentence1997See National Fuel Gas Supply v. Public Service Comm’n, 894 F.2d 571 (2nd Cir.1990) (state law requiring certificate of environmental compatibility and public need for interstate pipeline preempted by FERC). [¶ 6] No Tanks argues that there can be no preemption unless the Commission’s review actually conflicts with a FERC decision. | 1 | 1 |
Director of Bureau of Labor Standards v. Fort Halifax Packing Co.green1 sentence1989See also, Director of Bureau of Labor Standards v. Fort Halifax Packing Co., 510 A.2d 1054 , 1060 fn. 10 (Me.1986). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maine. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Coventry Health Care of Mo., Inc. v. Nevils
green
1 sentence2025The Supreme Court has recognized that “the phrase ‘relate to’ in a preemption clause ‘express[es] a broad pre-emptive purpose.’” Coventry Health Care of Mo., Inc. v. Nevils, 581 U.S. 87 , 95-96 (2017) (quoting Morales v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 504 U.S. 374, 383 (1992)). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Forest Ecology Network v. Land Use Regulation Commission
green
2 sentences2024Comm’n, 2012 ME 36, ¶ 24 , 39 A.3d 74 ; see Mazariegos–Paiz v. Holder, 734 F.3d 57, 62 (1st Cir. 2013) (“Were the court free to delve into the merits of issues not presented to the agency, it would effectively usurp the agency’s function.”). 2024Comm’n, 2012 ME 36, ¶ 24 , 39 A.3d 74 ; see Mazariegos–Paiz v. Holder, 734 F.3d 57, 62 (1st Cir. 2013) (“Were the court free to delve into the merits of issues not presented to the agency, it would effectively usurp the agency’s function.”). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Gonzales v. Raich
green
2 sentences2018A. Preemption Principles [¶ 8] The preemption analysis must begin with the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, which "unambiguously provides that if there is any conflict between federal and state law, federal law shall prevail." Gonzales v. Raich , 545 U.S. 1 , 29, 125 S.Ct. 2195 , 162 L.Ed.2d 1 (2005) ; see U.S. Const. art. 2018A. Preemption Principles [¶ 8] The preemption analysis must begin with the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, which "unambiguously provides that if there is any conflict between federal and state law, federal law shall prevail." Gonzales v. Raich , 545 U.S. 1 , 29, 125 S.Ct. 2195 , 162 L.Ed.2d 1 (2005) ; see U.S. Const. art. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
People v. Federal Tool & Plastics
green
2 sentences1989Chamber of Commerce of the United States v. State of New Jersey [ 89 N.J. 131 ], 445 A.2d 353 (N.J.1982) (“local concern and responsibility” exception to the preemption doctrine does not apply to a law that directly affects a federally protected right like an employer’s right to hire replacements); Illinois v. Federal Tool and Plastics, Division of U.L.A. [V.C.A., 62 Ill.2d 549 ], 344 N.E.2d 1 (Ill.1975); Michigan Chamber of Commerce v. Michigan, 115 LRRM 2887 (Mich.Cir.Ct.1984); Note, Federal Preemption: State Strikebreaking Laws and National Labor Policy, 30 Cath.U.L.Rev. 521 (1981). 1989Chamber of Commerce of the United States v. State of New Jersey [ 89 N.J. 131 ], 445 A.2d 353 (N.J.1982) (“local concern and responsibility” exception to the preemption doctrine does not apply to a law that directly affects a federally protected right like an employer’s right to hire replacements); Illinois v. Federal Tool and Plastics, Division of U.L.A. [V.C.A., 62 Ill.2d 549 ], 344 N.E.2d 1 (Ill.1975); Michigan Chamber of Commerce v. Michigan, 115 LRRM 2887 (Mich.Cir.Ct.1984); Note, Federal Preemption: State Strikebreaking Laws and National Labor Policy, 30 Cath.U.L.Rev. 521 (1981). | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Chamber of Commerce of the United States v. State
green
2 sentences1989Chamber of Commerce of the United States v. State of New Jersey [ 89 N.J. 131 ], 445 A.2d 353 (N.J.1982) (“local concern and responsibility” exception to the preemption doctrine does not apply to a law that directly affects a federally protected right like an employer’s right to hire replacements); Illinois v. Federal Tool and Plastics, Division of U.L.A. [V.C.A., 62 Ill.2d 549 ], 344 N.E.2d 1 (Ill.1975); Michigan Chamber of Commerce v. Michigan, 115 LRRM 2887 (Mich.Cir.Ct.1984); Note, Federal Preemption: State Strikebreaking Laws and National Labor Policy, 30 Cath.U.L.Rev. 521 (1981). 1989Chamber of Commerce of the United States v. State of New Jersey [ 89 N.J. 131 ], 445 A.2d 353 (N.J.1982) (“local concern and responsibility” exception to the preemption doctrine does not apply to a law that directly affects a federally protected right like an employer’s right to hire replacements); Illinois v. Federal Tool and Plastics, Division of U.L.A. [V.C.A., 62 Ill.2d 549 ], 344 N.E.2d 1 (Ill.1975); Michigan Chamber of Commerce v. Michigan, 115 LRRM 2887 (Mich.Cir.Ct.1984); Note, Federal Preemption: State Strikebreaking Laws and National Labor Policy, 30 Cath.U.L.Rev. 521 (1981). | 1 | 1989–1989 |
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.