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.
5 Alabama opinions name it 1 courts 1983–2023 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Alabama 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 |
|---|---|---|
New York State Conference of Blue Cross & Blue Shield Plans v. Travelers Insurancegreen1 sentence2023Co., 514 U.S. 645, 654-57 (1995) (citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Linn v. United Plant Guard Workers of America, Local 114green2 sentences1983See, e.g., Linn v. Plant Guard Workers , 383 U.S. 53 , 86 S.Ct. 657 , 15 L.Ed.2d 582 (1966) (malicious libel); Automobile Workers v. Russell , 356 U.S. 634 , 78 S.Ct. 932 , 2 L.Ed.2d 1030 (1958) (mass picketing and threats of violence); Machinists v. Gonzales , 356 U.S. 617 , 78 S.Ct. 923 , 2 L.Ed.2d 1018 (1958) (wrongful expulsion from union membership). 1983We have refused to apply the pre-emption doctrine to activity that otherwise would fall within the scope of Garmon if that activity "was a merely peripheral concern of the Labor Management Relations Act . . . [or] touched interests so deeply rooted in local feeling and responsibility that, in the absence of compelling congressional direction, we could not infer that Congress had deprived the States of the power to act." Id. [359 U.S.], at 243-244, 79 S.Ct. at 779 . | 1 | 1 |
Vaca v. Sipesgreen2 sentences1983See Vaca v. Sipes , [ 386 U.S. 171 , 87 S.Ct. 903 , 17 L.Ed.2d 842 ] supra (duty of fair representation cases). 1983See Vaca v. Sipes , [ 386 U.S. 171 , 87 S.Ct. 903 , 17 L.Ed.2d 842 ] supra (duty of fair representation cases). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Pilot Life Insurance v. Dedeaux
green
2 sentences1999Under ERISA, the Court wrote, "If a state law `relate[s] to ... employee benefit plan[s],' it is pre-empted. [However, a] savings clause [in ERISA] excepts from the pre-emption clause laws that `regulat[e] insurance.'" 481 U.S. at 45 , 107 S.Ct. 1549 . 1999Under ERISA, the Court wrote, "If a state law `relate[s] to . . . employee benefit plan[s],' it is pre- empted. [However, a] savings clause [in ERISA] excepts from the pre-emption clause laws that `regulat[e] insurance.'" 481 U.S. at 45 . | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc.
green
2 sentences1991The key to § 514(a) is found in the words 'relate to.' Congress used those words in their broad sense, rejecting more limited pre-emption language that would have made the clause 'applicable only to state laws relating to the specific subjects covered by ERISA.' Shaw, supra , 463 U.S., at 98 , 103 S.Ct., at 2900 -01 . 1991The key to § 514(a) is found in the words 'relate to.' Congress used those words in their broad sense, rejecting more limited pre-emption language that would have made the clause 'applicable only to state laws relating to the specific subjects covered by ERISA.' Shaw, supra , 463 U.S., at 98 , 103 S.Ct., at 2900 -01 . | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Fidelity Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. De La Cuesta
green
2 sentences1988The general principles of the doctrine of preemption of state law by federal law have been stated by the United States Supreme Court in Fidelity Federal Savings Loan Ass'n v. De La Cuesta , 458 U.S. 141 , 102 S.Ct. 3014 , 73 L.Ed.2d 664 (1982), as follows: "The pre-emption doctrine, which has its roots in the Supremacy Clause, U.S. Const., Art. 1988The general principles of the doctrine of preemption of state law by federal law have been stated by the United States Supreme Court in Fidelity Federal Savings Loan Ass'n v. De La Cuesta , 458 U.S. 141 , 102 S.Ct. 3014 , 73 L.Ed.2d 664 (1982), as follows: "The pre-emption doctrine, which has its roots in the Supremacy Clause, U.S. Const., Art. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
International Ass'n of MacHinists v. Gonzales
green
2 sentences1983See, e.g., Linn v. Plant Guard Workers , 383 U.S. 53 , 86 S.Ct. 657 , 15 L.Ed.2d 582 (1966) (malicious libel); Automobile Workers v. Russell , 356 U.S. 634 , 78 S.Ct. 932 , 2 L.Ed.2d 1030 (1958) (mass picketing and threats of violence); Machinists v. Gonzales , 356 U.S. 617 , 78 S.Ct. 923 , 2 L.Ed.2d 1018 (1958) (wrongful expulsion from union membership). 1983See, e.g., Linn v. Plant Guard Workers , 383 U.S. 53 , 86 S.Ct. 657 , 15 L.Ed.2d 582 (1966) (malicious libel); Automobile Workers v. Russell , 356 U.S. 634 , 78 S.Ct. 932 , 2 L.Ed.2d 1030 (1958) (mass picketing and threats of violence); Machinists v. Gonzales , 356 U.S. 617 , 78 S.Ct. 923 , 2 L.Ed.2d 1018 (1958) (wrongful expulsion from union membership). | 1 | 1983–1983 |
International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers v. Russell
green
2 sentences1983See, e.g., Linn v. Plant Guard Workers , 383 U.S. 53 , 86 S.Ct. 657 , 15 L.Ed.2d 582 (1966) (malicious libel); Automobile Workers v. Russell , 356 U.S. 634 , 78 S.Ct. 932 , 2 L.Ed.2d 1030 (1958) (mass picketing and threats of violence); Machinists v. Gonzales , 356 U.S. 617 , 78 S.Ct. 923 , 2 L.Ed.2d 1018 (1958) (wrongful expulsion from union membership). 1983See, e.g., Linn v. Plant Guard Workers , 383 U.S. 53 , 86 S.Ct. 657 , 15 L.Ed.2d 582 (1966) (malicious libel); Automobile Workers v. Russell , 356 U.S. 634 , 78 S.Ct. 932 , 2 L.Ed.2d 1030 (1958) (mass picketing and threats of violence); Machinists v. Gonzales , 356 U.S. 617 , 78 S.Ct. 923 , 2 L.Ed.2d 1018 (1958) (wrongful expulsion from union membership). | 1 | 1983–1983 |
San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon
green
1 sentence1983We have refused to apply the pre-emption doctrine to activity that otherwise would fall within the scope of Garmon if that activity "was a merely peripheral concern of the Labor Management Relations Act . . . [or] touched interests so deeply rooted in local feeling and responsibility that, in the absence of compelling congressional direction, we could not infer that Congress had deprived the States of the power to act." Id. [359 U.S.], at 243-244, 79 S.Ct. at 779 . | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Amalgamated Ass'n of Street, Electric Railway & Motor Coach Employees of America v. Lockridge
green
2 sentences1983We also have refused to apply the pre-emption doctrine "where the particular rule of law sought to be invoked before another tribunal is so structured and administered that, in virtually all instances, it is safe to presume that judicial supervision will not disserve the interests promoted by the federal labor statutes." Motor Coach Employees v. Lockridge, supra [ 403 U.S. 274 ], at 297-298, 91 S.Ct. [1909], at 1923 [ 29 L.Ed.2d 473 ]. 1983We also have refused to apply the pre-emption doctrine "where the particular rule of law sought to be invoked before another tribunal is so structured and administered that, in virtually all instances, it is safe to presume that judicial supervision will not disserve the interests promoted by the federal labor statutes." Motor Coach Employees v. Lockridge, supra [ 403 U.S. 274 ], at 297-298, 91 S.Ct. [1909], at 1923 [ 29 L.Ed.2d 473 ]. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
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.