45 Minnesota opinions name it 2 courts 1984–2019 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Minnesota 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. RMhgreen2 sentences2009State v. R.M.H. provides little guidance in this case because the decision there to conduct a preemption analysis "rest[ed] heavily on the status of R.M.H. as a nonmember Indian.” 617 N.W.2d 55 , 63 (Minn.2000). 2009Given our precedent in Stone , it is enough for me to acknowledge that the MCT is a tribe and Davis is a member of that tribe. [9] State v. R.M.H . provides little guidance in this case because the decision there to conduct a preemption analysis "rest[ed] heavily on the status of R.M.H. as a nonmember Indian." 617 N.W.2d 55 , 63 (Minn.2000). | 2 | 3 |
Mangold Midwest Co. v. Village of Richfieldgreen2 sentences2006See Mangold Midwest Co. v. Village of Richfield, 274 Minn. 347, 356 , 143 N.W.2d 813, 819 (1966). 2006See Mangold Midwest Co. v. Village of Richfield, 274 Minn. 347, 356 , 143 N.W.2d 813, 819 (1966). | 2 | 3 |
City of Morris v. Sax Investments, Inc.green2 sentences2017See Kuhlman, 729 N.W.2d at 584 (explaining that the “compelling public safety considerations” that led to adoption of an ordinance governing red-light violations "are not relevant to a preemption analysis”); City of Morris, 749 N.W.2d at 13 ("[R]egardless of our view on the merits of [the municipality’s] policy arguments, we are bound to apply the policy decisions adopted by the Legislature....”). . 2011Because the pipeline routing statute contains a specific preemption clause, our analysis should focus on “the language of the statute.” City of Morris v. Sax Invs., Inc., 749 N.W.2d 1, 6-7 (Minn.2008) (stating the factors we consider when the Legislature has “impliedly declared” an area to be “a matter solely of state concern” and explaining that this analysis does not apply when a statute “contains specific language as to the extent of permissible municipal regulation” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted)). | 2 | 2 |
Caplinger v. Medtronic, Inc.green2 sentences2015Cal. Jan. 30, 2014) (holding that “premarket approval imposes federal requirements on the Infuse device regardless of off-label promotion or use” (emphasis added)); Caplinger v. Medtronic, Inc., 921 F. Supp. 2d 1206, 1218 (W.D. 2015Jan. 30, 2014) (holding that “premarket approval imposes federal requirements on the Infuse device regardless of off-label promotion or use” (emphasis added)); Caplinger v. Med-tronic, Inc., 921 F.Supp.2d 1206, 1218 (W.D.Okla.2013) (same). | 2 | 2 |
Dahl v. Charles Schwab & Co., Inc.green2 sentences2002Preemption analysis begins with the assumption that the “historic police powers of the [s]tates” are not to be eclipsed unless to do so was “the clear and manifest purpose of Congress.” Dahl v. Charles Schwab & Co., 545 N.W.2d 918, 922 (Minn.1996) (quoting Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U.S. 218, 230 , 67 S.Ct. 1146, 1152 , 91 L.Ed. 1447 (1947)). 2002Preemption analysis begins with the assumption that the "historic police powers of the [s]tates" are not to be eclipsed unless to do so was "the clear and manifest purpose of Congress." Dahl v. Charles Schwab & Co., 545 N.W.2d 918, 922 (Minn.1996) (quoting Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U.S. 218, 230 , 67 S.Ct. 1146, 1152 , 91 L.Ed. 1447 (1947)). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Kuhlmangreen2 sentences2017See Kuhlman, 729 N.W.2d at 584 (explaining that the “compelling public safety considerations” that led to adoption of an ordinance governing red-light violations "are not relevant to a preemption analysis”); City of Morris, 749 N.W.2d at 13 ("[R]egardless of our view on the merits of [the municipality’s] policy arguments, we are bound to apply the policy decisions adopted by the Legislature....”). . 2013State v. Kuhlman, 722 N.W.2d 1, 3-5 (Minn.App.2006), aff'd, 729 N.W.2d 577 (Minn.2007). 3 We adopt the same approach here. | 1 | 2 |
California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indiansred2 sentences2004State law is preempted by federal law in this context “if it interferes or is incompatible with federal and tribal interests reflected in federal law, unless the state interests at stake are sufficient to justify the assertion of state authority.” California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, 480 U.S. 202, 216 , 107 S.Ct. 1083 , 94 L.Ed.2d 244 (1987) (quoting New Mexico v. Mescalero Apache Tribe, 462 U.S. 324, 333 , 103 S.Ct. 2378 , 76 L.Ed.2d 611 (1983)). 2004State law is preempted by federal law in this context “if it interferes or is incompatible with federal and tribal interests reflected in federal law, unless the state interests at stake are sufficient to justify the assertion of state authority.” California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, 480 U.S. 202, 216 , 107 S.Ct. 1083 , 94 L.Ed.2d 244 (1987) (quoting New Mexico v. Mescalero Apache Tribe, 462 U.S. 324, 333 , 103 S.Ct. 2378 , 76 L.Ed.2d 611 (1983)). | 1 | 2 |
Jennissen v. City of Bloomingtongreen1 sentence2019See Jennissen , 913 N.W.2d at 460 . | 1 | 1 |
In Re Consolidated Hospital Surcharge Appeals of GILLETTE CHILDREN’S SPECIALTY HEALTHCARE, St. Luke’s Hospital, North Memorial Health Care, HealthEast Care System, Park Nicollet Health Services, Fairview Health Services, and Children’s Hospitals and Clinics of Minnesotagreen1 sentence2017The district court considered field preemption, express preemption, and conflict preemption, see In re Gillette Children's Specialty Healthcare, 883 N.W.2d 778, 785 (Minn. 2016) (explaining that preemption may be found “ ‘by express provision, by implication, or by a conflict' ” with other laws (quoting N.Y. | 1 | 1 |
Howlett Ex Rel. Howlett v. Rosegreen2 sentences2015Howlett v. Rose, 496 U.S. 356, 372 , 110 S. Ct. 2430, 2441 (1990). 2015Howlett v. Rose, 496 U.S. 356, 372 , 110 S. Ct. 2430, 2441 (1990). | 1 | 1 |
Grade v. BNSF Railway Co.green1 sentence2014See Grade, 676 F.3d at 685 . | 1 | 1 |
Morissette v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2013See Morissette v. U.S., 342 U.S. 246, 263 , 72 S.Ct. 240, 250 , 96 L.Ed. 288 (1952) (stating that when the legislature uses terms of art that have “accumulated the legal tradition and meaning of centuries of practice, it presumably knows and adopts the cluster of ideas that were attached to each borrowed word in the body of learning from which it was taken and the meaning its use will convey to the judicial mind”). 2013See Morissette v. U.S., 342 U.S. 246, 263 , 72 S.Ct. 240, 250 , 96 L.Ed. 288 (1952) (stating that when the legislature uses terms of art that have “accumulated the legal tradition and meaning of centuries of practice, it presumably knows and adopts the cluster of ideas that were attached to each borrowed word in the body of learning from which it was taken and the meaning its use will convey to the judicial mind”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Kuhlmangreen1 sentence2013State v. Kuhlman, 722 N.W.2d 1, 3-5 (Minn.App.2006), aff'd, 729 N.W.2d 577 (Minn.2007). 3 We adopt the same approach here. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Davisgreen1 sentence2011I reach this conclusion based on the preemption analysis we followed in State v. Davis, 773 N.W.2d 66, 69 (Minn.2009). | 1 | 1 |
In Re the Estate of Barggreen1 sentence2009“Congressional purpose is ‘the ultimate touchstone’ of the preemption inquiry.” In re Estate of Barg, 752 N.W.2d 52, 63 (Minn.2008) (quoting Malone v. White Motor Corp., 435 U.S. 497, 504 , 98 S.Ct. 1185, 1190 , 55 L.Ed.2d 443 (1978)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Stonegreen2 sentences2009We held that, for a speeding violation, a preemption analysis was unnecessary because the state could not overcome “ ‘the right of reservation Indians to make them own laws and be ruled by them.’ ” Stone, 572 N.W.2d at 732 (quoting White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker, 448 U.S. 136, 142 , 100 S.Ct. 2578 , 65 L.Ed.2d 665 (1980)). 2009I believe that because this case is also a traffic violation case, our decision in Stone is controlling: “Without exceptional circumstances, we do not reach the preemption analysis.” Id. | 1 | 1 |
Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation v. Wold Engineering, P. C.green2 sentences2009See 476 U.S. at 884 , 106 S.Ct. 2305 . 2009See 476 U.S. at 884 , 106 S.Ct. 2305 . | 1 | 1 |
Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc.green2 sentences2007See Cipollone, 505 U.S. at 508-09 , 112 S.Ct. at 2614-15 . 2 In Cipollone , the Court considered whether the FCLAA’s preemption clause barred a state-law suit for damages brought by a smoker who had allegedly developed lung cancer from the defendants’ cigarettes. 2007See Cipollone, 505 U.S. at 508-09 , 112 S.Ct. at 2614-15 . 2 In Cipollone , the Court considered whether the FCLAA’s preemption clause barred a state-law suit for damages brought by a smoker who had allegedly developed lung cancer from the defendants’ cigarettes. | 1 | 1 |
| Minneapolis Term Limits Coalition v. Keefegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Blackburn v. Doubleday Broadcasting Co.green | 1 | 1 |
| American Airlines, Inc. v. Wolensgreen | 1 | 1 |
| cluster 759280green | 1 | 1 |
| Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Stonegreen | 1 | 1 |
| CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Easterwoodgreen | 1 | 1 |
| National Aviation v. City of Hayward, Cal.green | 1 | 1 |
| Liebsch v. Abbottgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Silkwood v. Kerr-McGee Corp.green | 1 | 1 |
| Junior S. Jackson, Cross-Appellant v. Consolidated Rail Corporation, Cross-Appelleegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp.
green
2 sentences2017A preemption analysis starts from the assumption “that ‘the historic police powers of the States’ are not superseded ‘unless that was the clear and manifest purpose of Congress.’ ” Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387, 400 , 132 S.Ct. 2492 , 183 L.Ed.2d 351 (2012) (quoting Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U.S. 218, 230 , 67 S.Ct. 1146 , 91 L.Ed. 1447 (1947)). 2017A preemption analysis starts from the assumption “that ‘the historic police powers of the States’ are not superseded ‘unless that was the clear and manifest purpose of Congress.’ ” Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387, 400 , 132 S.Ct. 2492 , 183 L.Ed.2d 351 (2012) (quoting Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U.S. 218, 230 , 67 S.Ct. 1146 , 91 L.Ed. 1447 (1947)). | 4 | 1996–2017 |
New Mexico v. Mescalero Apache Tribe
green
2 sentences2004Preemption inquiry *150 should be performed with an eye towards “traditional notions of Indian sovereignty and the congressional goal of Indian self-government, including its ‘overriding goal’ of encouraging tribal self-sufficiency and economic development.” Id. 2000Further, in this area of the law, a preemption analysis rests “principally on a consideration of the nature of the competing interests at stake” and rejects “a narrow focus on congressional intent to preempt state law as the sole touchstone.” Mescalero, 462 U.S. at 334 , 103 S.Ct. 2378 . | 3 | 2000–2004 |
Malone v. White Motor Corp.
green
2 sentences2009“Congressional purpose is ‘the ultimate touchstone’ of the preemption inquiry.” In re Estate of Barg, 752 N.W.2d 52, 63 (Minn.2008) (quoting Malone v. White Motor Corp., 435 U.S. 497, 504 , 98 S.Ct. 1185, 1190 , 55 L.Ed.2d 443 (1978)). 2009“Congressional purpose is ‘the ultimate touchstone’ of the preemption inquiry.” In re Estate of Barg, 752 N.W.2d 52, 63 (Minn.2008) (quoting Malone v. White Motor Corp., 435 U.S. 497, 504 , 98 S.Ct. 1185, 1190 , 55 L.Ed.2d 443 (1978)). | 2 | 2008–2009 |
White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker
green
2 sentences2009We held that, for a speeding violation, a preemption analysis was unnecessary because the state could not overcome “ ‘the right of reservation Indians to make them own laws and be ruled by them.’ ” Stone, 572 N.W.2d at 732 (quoting White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker, 448 U.S. 136, 142 , 100 S.Ct. 2578 , 65 L.Ed.2d 665 (1980)). 2009We held that, for a speeding violation, a preemption analysis was unnecessary because the state could not overcome “ ‘the right of reservation Indians to make them own laws and be ruled by them.’ ” Stone, 572 N.W.2d at 732 (quoting White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker, 448 U.S. 136, 142 , 100 S.Ct. 2578 , 65 L.Ed.2d 665 (1980)). | 2 | 1997–2009 |
Hines v. Davidowitz
green
2 sentences1988The Court *697 thus contrasted the preemption analysis of health and safety matters with the analysis in other areas, such as foreign affairs, where an intent to preempt can be “inferred * * * from the dominance of the federal interest * * *.” Id. at 719 , 105 S.Ct. at 2378 , citing Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52 , 61 S.Ct. 399 , 85 L.Ed. 581 (1941). 1988The Court *697 thus contrasted the preemption analysis of health and safety matters with the analysis in other areas, such as foreign affairs, where an intent to preempt can be “inferred * * * from the dominance of the federal interest * * *.” Id. at 719 , 105 S.Ct. at 2378 , citing Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52 , 61 S.Ct. 399 , 85 L.Ed. 581 (1941). | 2 | 1988–1995 |
Arizona v. United States
green
2 sentences2017A preemption analysis starts from the assumption “that ‘the historic police powers of the States’ are not superseded ‘unless that was the clear and manifest purpose of Congress.’ ” Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387, 400 , 132 S.Ct. 2492 , 183 L.Ed.2d 351 (2012) (quoting Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U.S. 218, 230 , 67 S.Ct. 1146 , 91 L.Ed. 1447 (1947)). 2017A preemption analysis starts from the assumption “that ‘the historic police powers of the States’ are not superseded ‘unless that was the clear and manifest purpose of Congress.’ ” Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387, 400 , 132 S.Ct. 2492 , 183 L.Ed.2d 351 (2012) (quoting Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U.S. 218, 230 , 67 S.Ct. 1146 , 91 L.Ed. 1447 (1947)). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Ingersoll-Rand Co. v. McClendon
green
2 sentences2015Id. at 138 , 111 S.Ct. 478 . 2015Id. at 138 , 111 S.Ct. 478 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Barrientos v. 1801-1825 MORTON LLC
green
1 sentence2014This case therefore resembles Barrientos v. 1801-1825 Morton LLC, in which the Ninth Circuit rejected a preemption challenge to a Los Angeles ordinance that gave tenants in federally subsidized housing greater protection from eviction than did federal law. 583 F.3d 1197 (9th Cir.2009). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Retail Clerks International Ass'n, Local 1625 v. Schermerhorn
green
2 sentences2008Malone v. White Motor Corp., 435 U.S. 497, 504 , 98 S.Ct. 1185 , 55 L.Ed.2d 443 (1978) (quoting Retail Clerks Int’l Ass’n, Local 1625 v. Schermerhorn, 375 U.S. 96, 103 , 84 S.Ct. 219 , 11 L.Ed.2d 179 (1963)). 2008Malone v. White Motor Corp., 435 U.S. 497, 504 , 98 S.Ct. 1185 , 55 L.Ed.2d 443 (1978) (quoting Retail Clerks Int’l Ass’n, Local 1625 v. Schermerhorn, 375 U.S. 96, 103 , 84 S.Ct. 219 , 11 L.Ed.2d 179 (1963)). | 1 | 2008–2008 |
cluster 741155
green
1 sentence2008Bucholtz, 114 F.3d at 924 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| State v. Hoben green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Oklahoma Tax Commission v. Sac & Fox Nation green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly
green
2 sentences2007Id. at 546 , 121 S.Ct. at 2417 . 2007Id. at 546 , 121 S.Ct. at 2417 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
City of St. Paul v. Olson
green
2 sentences2007In Olson , the defendant, charged with violating a Saint Paul ordinance prohibiting unreasonable acceleration, challenged the ordinance on the ground that it conflicted with state law. 300 Minn. at 455-56 , 220 N.W.2d at 484-85 . 2007In Olson , the defendant, charged with violating a Saint Paul ordinance prohibiting unreasonable acceleration, challenged the ordinance on the ground that it conflicted with state law. 300 Minn. at 455-56 , 220 N.W.2d at 484-85 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Avemco Insurance Co. v. State Ex Rel. McCarty green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| Hubsch v. United States green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| Harker v. University Professionals of Illinois green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| Head v. New Mexico Board of Examiners in Optometry green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| Duro v. Reina red | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| Morales v. Trans World Airlines, Inc. green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| Wyshak v. American Savings Bank, F.A. green | 1 | 1997–1997 |
| Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| cluster 584519 green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| Fidelity Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. De La Cuesta green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| Chicago & North Western Transportation Co. v. Kalo Brick & Tile Co. green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| Maryland v. Louisiana green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| San Diego Unified Port District v. Gianturco green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| National Labor Relations Board v. Insurance Agents' International Union green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| Lodge 76, International Ass'n of MacHinists & Aerospace Workers v. Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| National Labor Relations Board v. Nash-Finch Co. green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| Belknap, Inc. v. Hale green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| Hillsborough County v. Automated Medical Laboratories, Inc. green | 1 | 1988–1988 |
| Farmer v. United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America, Local 25 green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| Local 100, United Ass'n of Journeymen & Apprentices v. Borden green | 1 | 1984–1984 |
| Northern States Power Co. v. Hagen green | 1 | 1984–1984 |
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.