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.
6 New Jersey opinions name it 2 courts 1994–2026 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New Jersey 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 |
|---|---|---|
Altria Group, Inc. v. Goodgreen2 sentences2026An express preemption clause “does not immediately end the inquiry,” however, “because the question of the substance and scope of Congress’ displacement of state law still remains.” Altria Grp., Inc. v. Good, 555 U.S. 70, 76 (2008). 2026An express preemption clause “does not immediately end the inquiry,” however, “because the question of the substance and scope of Congress’ displacement of state law still remains.” Altria Grp., Inc. v. Good, 555 U.S. 70, 76 (2008). | 1 | 1 |
Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohrgreen1 sentence2020However, states are not precluded "from providing a damages remedy for claims premised on a violation of FDA regulations," if "the state duties in such a case 'parallel,' rather than add to, federal requirements." Riegel, 552 U.S. at 330 (citing Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, 518 U.S. 470, 495 (1996)). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New Jersey. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc.
green
2 sentences1995Rather, the clause must itself be construed to determine just what it does preempt, and matters beyond the preemptive reach are then presumed not to be preempted, provided, of course, that the field is not occupied and that there is no direct conflict with federal law. 505 U.S. at 517-519 , 112 S.Ct. at 2618 , 120 L.Ed. 2d at 423 . 1995Rather, the clause must itself be construed to determine just what it does preempt, and matters beyond the preemptive reach are then presumed not to be preempted, provided, of course, that the field is not occupied and that there is no direct conflict with federal law. 505 U.S. at 517-519 , 112 S.Ct. at 2618 , 120 L.Ed. 2d at 423 . | 2 | 1995–1995 |
Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc.
green
1 sentence2020However, states are not precluded "from providing a damages remedy for claims premised on a violation of FDA regulations," if "the state duties in such a case 'parallel,' rather than add to, federal requirements." Riegel, 552 U.S. at 330 (citing Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, 518 U.S. 470, 495 (1996)). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Fidelity Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. De La Cuesta
green
2 sentences1998In connection with a loan on a home (as defined in § 541.14 of this chapter) occupied or to be occupied by the borrower, a savings association or subsidiary thereof may require such borrower to reimburse it for legal services rendered by its attorney, or to directly pay such attorney for such services, only if: (1) Such attorney’s fee is limited to legal services attributable to processing and closing such loan (and not unrelated services performed for the savings association or subsidiary by the attorney); Although Collective recognizes that 12 C.F.R. § 563.35 (d) (“§ 563.35(d)”) did not cont 1998In connection with a loan on a home (as defined in § 541.14 of this chapter) occupied or to be occupied by the borrower, a savings association or subsidiary thereof may require such borrower to reimburse it for legal services rendered by its attorney, or to directly pay such attorney for such services, only if: (1) Such attorney’s fee is limited to legal services attributable to processing and closing such loan (and not unrelated services performed for the savings association or subsidiary by the attorney); Although Collective recognizes that 12 C.F.R. § 563.35 (d) (“§ 563.35(d)”) did not cont | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Sherman v. Citibank (South Dakota), N.A.
green
2 sentences1995In Sherman, supra, 143 N.J. at 90 , 668 A.2d 1036 , I concluded that section 85 conflicts with state laws, such as RISA, that prohibit late fees. 1995In Sherman, supra, 143 N.J. at 90 , 668 A.2d 1036 , I concluded that section 85 conflicts with state laws, such as RISA, that prohibit late fees. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Freightliner Corp. v. Myrick
green
2 sentences1995In Freightliner, the Court clarified that Cipollone does not preclude implied preemption whenever Congress includes an express preemption clause in a federal statute. 514 U.S. at-, 115 S.Ct. at 1487-88, 131 L.Ed.2d at 393 . 1995In Freightliner, the Court clarified that Cipollone does not preclude implied preemption whenever Congress includes an express preemption clause in a federal statute. 514 U.S. at ___ , 115 S.Ct. at 1487-88, 131 L.Ed. 2d at 393 . | 1 | 1995–1995 |
cluster 660303
green
1 sentence1994Myrick v. Freuhauf Corp., 13 F. 3d 1516 (11th Cir.1994). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
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.