5 California opinions name it 2 courts 2017–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
City of Garden Grove v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences2017These authorities stand for the unremarkable proposition that "[c]ourts have recognized that, consistent with our federal system of government, state political subdivisions should be given standing to invoke the supremacy clause to challenge a state law on preemption grounds ." ( *593 City of Garden Grove v. Superior Court (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 355 , 371, 68 Cal.Rptr.3d 656 , italics added.) Star-Kist explained that the general rule was a political subdivision could not challenge the actions of its creator. ( Star-Kist , supra , 42 Cal.3d at pp. 5-6, 227 Cal.Rptr. 391 , 719 P.2d 987 .) It hel 2017These authorities stand for the unremarkable proposition that "[c]ourts have recognized that, consistent with our federal system of government, state political subdivisions should be given standing to invoke the supremacy clause to challenge a state law on preemption grounds ." ( *593 City of Garden Grove v. Superior Court (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 355 , 371, 68 Cal.Rptr.3d 656 , italics added.) Star-Kist explained that the general rule was a political subdivision could not challenge the actions of its creator. ( Star-Kist , supra , 42 Cal.3d at pp. 5-6, 227 Cal.Rptr. 391 , 719 P.2d 987 .) It hel | 4 | 2017–2017 |
Star-Kist Foods, Inc. v. County of Los Angeles
green
2 sentences2017These authorities stand for the unremarkable proposition that "[c]ourts have recognized that, consistent with our federal system of government, state political subdivisions should be given standing to invoke the supremacy clause to challenge a state law on preemption grounds ." ( *593 City of Garden Grove v. Superior Court (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 355 , 371, 68 Cal.Rptr.3d 656 , italics added.) Star-Kist explained that the general rule was a political subdivision could not challenge the actions of its creator. ( Star-Kist , supra , 42 Cal.3d at pp. 5-6, 227 Cal.Rptr. 391 , 719 P.2d 987 .) It hel 2017These authorities stand for the unremarkable proposition that "[c]ourts have recognized that, consistent with our federal system of government, state political subdivisions should be given standing to invoke the supremacy clause to challenge a state law on preemption grounds ." ( *593 City of Garden Grove v. Superior Court (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 355 , 371, 68 Cal.Rptr.3d 656 , italics added.) Star-Kist explained that the general rule was a political subdivision could not challenge the actions of its creator. ( Star-Kist , supra , 42 Cal.3d at pp. 5-6, 227 Cal.Rptr. 391 , 719 P.2d 987 .) It hel | 2 | 2017–2024 |
Washington v. Seattle School District No. 1
green
1 sentence2024No. 1 (1982) 458 U.S. 457 , with the bold but erroneous assertion that the decision “signaled that school districts are different and not subject to the political- subdivision rule.” That case did not suggest that school districts are “different” and did not consider the issue in Star–Kist: whether a political subdivision possesses “ ‘privileges or immunities under the federal constitution which it may invoke in opposition to the will of’ ” the state. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
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.