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 3 courts 1999–2023 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Sherwin-Williams Co. v. City of Los Angelesgreen1 sentence2023(Sherwin-Williams, supra, 4 Cal.4th at p. 898 [field preemption considerations include whether the subject matter is “ ‘exclusively a matter of state concern,’ ” indicates a “ ‘paramount state concern,’ ” or “ ‘is of such a nature that the adverse effect of a local ordinance on the transient citizens of the state outweighs the possible benefit to the’ locality”].) Nor need we address the parties’ conflicting views on whether and how to apply the federal “obstacle preemption” doctrine. 19 CHEVRON U.S.A. | 1 | 1 |
Caterpillar Inc. v. Williamsgreen1 sentence2017Voice for Animals v. Adidas Promotional Retail Operations, Inc. (2007) 41 Cal.4th 929 , 936, 63 Cal.Rptr.3d 50 , 162 P.3d 569 .) Under the field preemption doctrine, which applies here, any claim purportedly based on the preempted state law is considered, from its inception, to be a federal claim and therefore arises under federal law for subject matter jurisdiction purposes. ( Caterpillar , at p. 393, 107 S.Ct. 2425 .) Whether and to what extent IGRA preempts state contract-enforcement actions is a question of law and is reviewed de novo. ( Farm Raised Salmon Cases (2008) 42 Cal.4th 1077 , 10 | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Viva! International Voice for Animals v. Adidas Promotional Retail Operations, Inc.
green
2 sentences2017Voice for Animals v. Adidas Promotional Retail Operations, Inc. (2007) 41 Cal.4th 929 , 936, 63 Cal.Rptr.3d 50 , 162 P.3d 569 .) Under the field preemption doctrine, which applies here, any claim purportedly based on the preempted state law is considered, from its inception, to be a federal claim and therefore arises under federal law for subject matter jurisdiction purposes. ( Caterpillar , at p. 393, 107 S.Ct. 2425 .) Whether and to what extent IGRA preempts state contract-enforcement actions is a question of law and is reviewed de novo. ( Farm Raised Salmon Cases (2008) 42 Cal.4th 1077 , 10 2017Voice for Animals v. Adidas Promotional Retail Operations, Inc. (2007) 41 Cal.4th 929 , 936, 63 Cal.Rptr.3d 50 , 162 P.3d 569 .) Under the field preemption doctrine, which applies here, any claim purportedly based on the preempted state law is considered, from its inception, to be a federal claim and therefore arises under federal law for subject matter jurisdiction purposes. ( Caterpillar , at p. 393, 107 S.Ct. 2425 .) Whether and to what extent IGRA preempts state contract-enforcement actions is a question of law and is reviewed de novo. ( Farm Raised Salmon Cases (2008) 42 Cal.4th 1077 , 10 | 2 | 2017–2017 |
Wells Fargo Bank, National Ass'n v. Lake of the Torches Economic Development Corp.
green
1 sentence2017Voice for Animals v. Adidas Promotional Retail Operations, Inc. (2007) 41 Cal.4th 929 , 936, 63 Cal.Rptr.3d 50 , 162 P.3d 569 .) Under the field preemption doctrine, which applies here, any claim purportedly based on the preempted state law is considered, from its inception, to be a federal claim and therefore arises under federal law for subject matter jurisdiction purposes. ( Caterpillar , at p. 393, 107 S.Ct. 2425 .) Whether and to what extent IGRA preempts state contract-enforcement actions is a question of law and is reviewed de novo. ( Farm Raised Salmon Cases (2008) 42 Cal.4th 1077 , 10 | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Spielholz v. Superior Court of Los Angeles Cty.
green
2 sentences2017Voice for Animals v. Adidas Promotional Retail Operations, Inc. (2007) 41 Cal.4th 929 , 936, 63 Cal.Rptr.3d 50 , 162 P.3d 569 .) Under the field preemption doctrine, which applies here, any claim purportedly based on the preempted state law is considered, from its inception, to be a federal claim and therefore arises under federal law for subject matter jurisdiction purposes. ( Caterpillar , at p. 393, 107 S.Ct. 2425 .) Whether and to what extent IGRA preempts state contract-enforcement actions is a question of law and is reviewed de novo. ( Farm Raised Salmon Cases (2008) 42 Cal.4th 1077 , 10 2017Voice for Animals v. Adidas Promotional Retail Operations, Inc. (2007) 41 Cal.4th 929 , 936, 63 Cal.Rptr.3d 50 , 162 P.3d 569 .) Under the field preemption doctrine, which applies here, any claim purportedly based on the preempted state law is considered, from its inception, to be a federal claim and therefore arises under federal law for subject matter jurisdiction purposes. ( Caterpillar , at p. 393, 107 S.Ct. 2425 .) Whether and to what extent IGRA preempts state contract-enforcement actions is a question of law and is reviewed de novo. ( Farm Raised Salmon Cases (2008) 42 Cal.4th 1077 , 10 | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Gaming World International, Ltd. v. White Earth Band Of Chippewa Indians
green
1 sentence2017Voice for Animals v. Adidas Promotional Retail Operations, Inc. (2007) 41 Cal.4th 929 , 936, 63 Cal.Rptr.3d 50 , 162 P.3d 569 .) Under the field preemption doctrine, which applies here, any claim purportedly based on the preempted state law is considered, from its inception, to be a federal claim and therefore arises under federal law for subject matter jurisdiction purposes. ( Caterpillar , at p. 393, 107 S.Ct. 2425 .) Whether and to what extent IGRA preempts state contract-enforcement actions is a question of law and is reviewed de novo. ( Farm Raised Salmon Cases (2008) 42 Cal.4th 1077 , 10 | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Reid v. GOOGLE, INC.
green
2 sentences2017Voice for Animals v. Adidas Promotional Retail Operations, Inc. (2007) 41 Cal.4th 929 , 936, 63 Cal.Rptr.3d 50 , 162 P.3d 569 .) Under the field preemption doctrine, which applies here, any claim purportedly based on the preempted state law is considered, from its inception, to be a federal claim and therefore arises under federal law for subject matter jurisdiction purposes. ( Caterpillar , at p. 393, 107 S.Ct. 2425 .) Whether and to what extent IGRA preempts state contract-enforcement actions is a question of law and is reviewed de novo. ( Farm Raised Salmon Cases (2008) 42 Cal.4th 1077 , 10 2017Voice for Animals v. Adidas Promotional Retail Operations, Inc. (2007) 41 Cal.4th 929 , 936, 63 Cal.Rptr.3d 50 , 162 P.3d 569 .) Under the field preemption doctrine, which applies here, any claim purportedly based on the preempted state law is considered, from its inception, to be a federal claim and therefore arises under federal law for subject matter jurisdiction purposes. ( Caterpillar , at p. 393, 107 S.Ct. 2425 .) Whether and to what extent IGRA preempts state contract-enforcement actions is a question of law and is reviewed de novo. ( Farm Raised Salmon Cases (2008) 42 Cal.4th 1077 , 10 | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Farm Raised Salmon Cases
green
1 sentence2017Voice for Animals v. Adidas Promotional Retail Operations, Inc. (2007) 41 Cal.4th 929 , 936, 63 Cal.Rptr.3d 50 , 162 P.3d 569 .) Under the field preemption doctrine, which applies here, any claim purportedly based on the preempted state law is considered, from its inception, to be a federal claim and therefore arises under federal law for subject matter jurisdiction purposes. ( Caterpillar , at p. 393, 107 S.Ct. 2425 .) Whether and to what extent IGRA preempts state contract-enforcement actions is a question of law and is reviewed de novo. ( Farm Raised Salmon Cases (2008) 42 Cal.4th 1077 , 10 | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Joan Carstensen v. Brunswick Corporation, Mercury Marine Corporation, and Sea Ray Boats, Inc.
green
1 sentence2001Relying on Carstensen v. Brunswick Corp. (8th Cir. 1995) 49 F.3d 430, 431 , the trial court ruled that LaPlante’s common law tort claims were barred by the doctrine of field preemption. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Urie v. Thompson
green
2 sentences1999(Urie v. Thompson (1949) 337 U.S. 163 , *1206 189-191 [ 69 S.Ct. 1018, 1034-1035 , 93 L.Ed. 1282 , , 11 A.L.R.2d 252 ].) 8 The power delegated to the Interstate Commerce Commission by the BIA to prescribe regulations for locomotive equipment was found to be a “general one. 1999(Urie v. Thompson (1949) 337 U.S. 163 , *1206 189-191 [ 69 S.Ct. 1018, 1034-1035 , 93 L.Ed. 1282 , , 11 A.L.R.2d 252 ].) 8 The power delegated to the Interstate Commerce Commission by the BIA to prescribe regulations for locomotive equipment was found to be a “general one. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
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.