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 California opinions name it 2 courts 2011–2018 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California 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 |
|---|---|---|
City of Riverside v. Inland Empire Patients Health & Wellness Center, Inc.green2 sentences2014“Express field preemption turns on a comparative statutory analysis: What field of exclusivity does the state preemption clause define, what subject matter does the 8 Undesignated statutory references in this section of our opinion are to the Health and Safety Code. 20 local ordinance regulate, and do the two overlap? [Citations.]” (California Grocers, supra, 52 Cal.4th at pp. 188-189.) “The party claiming that general state law preempts a local ordinance has the burden of demonstrating preemption. [Citation.]” (Big Creek Lumber, supra, 38 Cal.4th at pp. 1149.) Court are “‘reluctant to infer l 2013“Express field preemption turns on a comparative statutory analysis: What field of exclusivity does the state *884 preemption clause define, what subject matter does the local ordinance regulate, and do the two overlap? [Citations.]” (California Grocers, supra, 52 Cal.4th at pp. 188-189.) “The party claiming that general state law preempts a local ordinance has the burden of demonstrating preemption. [Citation.]” (Big Creek Lumber, supra, 38 Cal.4th at p. 1149 .) Courts are “ ‘reluctant to infer legislative intent to preempt a field covered by municipal regulation when there is a significant l | 2 | 2 |
California Grocers Assn. v. City of Los Angelesgreen2 sentences2018Express Preemption of an Area Occupied by State Law "Express field preemption turns on a comparative statutory analysis: What field of exclusivity does the state preemption clause define, what subject matter does the local ordinance regulate, and do the two overlap?" ( California Grocers Assn. v. City of Los Angeles (2011) 52 Cal.4th 177 , 188, 127 Cal.Rptr.3d 726 , 254 P.3d 1019 ( California Grocers ).) *243 A. FEHA's Field of Exclusivity The parties and amici offer three different answers to the first question, as to what field of exclusivity FEHA's preemption clause defines. 2018Express Preemption of an Area Occupied by State Law "Express field preemption turns on a comparative statutory analysis: What field of exclusivity does the state preemption clause define, what subject matter does the local ordinance regulate, and do the two overlap?" ( California Grocers Assn. v. City of Los Angeles (2011) 52 Cal.4th 177 , 188, 127 Cal.Rptr.3d 726 , 254 P.3d 1019 ( California Grocers ).) *243 A. FEHA's Field of Exclusivity The parties and amici offer three different answers to the first question, as to what field of exclusivity FEHA's preemption clause defines. | 1 | 3 |
Morehart v. County of Santa Barbaragreen2 sentences2011(See, e.g., Big Creek Lumber, at pp. 1152-1157; Morehart v. County of Santa Barbara (1994) 7 Cal.4th 725, 748-751 [ 29 Cal.Rptr.2d 804 , 872 P.2d 143 ].) The burden of proving the existence of such an overlap rests on Grocers, as the party asserting preemption. 2011(See, e.g., Big Creek Lumber, at pp. 1152-1157; Morehart v. County of Santa Barbara (1994) 7 Cal.4th 725 , 748- 4 751.) The burden of proving the existence of such an overlap rests on Grocers, as the party asserting preemption. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Big Creek Lumber Co. v. County of Santa Cruz
green
2 sentences2014“Express field preemption turns on a comparative statutory analysis: What field of exclusivity does the state preemption clause define, what subject matter does the 8 Undesignated statutory references in this section of our opinion are to the Health and Safety Code. 20 local ordinance regulate, and do the two overlap? [Citations.]” (California Grocers, supra, 52 Cal.4th at pp. 188-189.) “The party claiming that general state law preempts a local ordinance has the burden of demonstrating preemption. [Citation.]” (Big Creek Lumber, supra, 38 Cal.4th at pp. 1149.) Court are “‘reluctant to infer l 2013“Express field preemption turns on a comparative statutory analysis: What field of exclusivity does the state *884 preemption clause define, what subject matter does the local ordinance regulate, and do the two overlap? [Citations.]” (California Grocers, supra, 52 Cal.4th at pp. 188-189.) “The party claiming that general state law preempts a local ordinance has the burden of demonstrating preemption. [Citation.]” (Big Creek Lumber, supra, 38 Cal.4th at p. 1149 .) Courts are “ ‘reluctant to infer legislative intent to preempt a field covered by municipal regulation when there is a significant l | 2 | 2013–2014 |