express preemption clause (Florida) · Go Syfert
← Florida issues

express preemption clause in Florida

5 Florida opinions name it 1 courts 2004–2025 1 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Florida 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.

Followed or applied (4)

CaseFollowedCited
Chamber of Commerce of United States of America v. Whitinggreen
scotus · 2011 · cited in 2 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015
2 sentences

2015When federal law contains an express preemption clause, our task is to “focus on the plain wording of the clause, which necessarily contains the best evidence of Congress’ preemptive .intent.” Chamber of Commerce of U.S. v. Whiting, 563 U.S. 582 , 131 S.Ct. 1968, 1977 , 179 L.Ed.2d 1031 (2011) (quoting CSX Transp., Inc. v. Easterwood, 507 U.S. 658 , 113 S.Ct. 1732 , 123 L.Ed.2d 387 (1993)). “[W]hen Congress has made its intent known through explicit statutory language, the courts’ task is an easy one.” English v. Gen.

2015When federal law contains an express preemption clause, our task is to “focus on the plain wording of the clause, which necessarily contains the best evidence of Congress’ preemptive .intent.” Chamber of Commerce of U.S. v. Whiting, 563 U.S. 582 , 131 S.Ct. 1968, 1977 , 179 L.Ed.2d 1031 (2011) (quoting CSX Transp., Inc. v. Easterwood, 507 U.S. 658 , 113 S.Ct. 1732 , 123 L.Ed.2d 387 (1993)). “[W]hen Congress has made its intent known through explicit statutory language, the courts’ task is an easy one.” English v. Gen.

22
Lowe's Home Centers, Inc. v. Olin Corp.green
ca11 · 2002 · cited in 2 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004
2 sentences

2004This language has been interpreted as prohibiting "any state common law cause of action that rests on an alleged failure to warn or convey information about a product through its label." See In re DuPont-Benlate Litig., 859 F.Supp. 619, 622 (D.P.R.1994); ISK Biotech Corp. v. Douberly, 640 So.2d 85, 88 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)(holding that "FIFRA preempts all state common law actions that are associated in any way with a claim of inadequate labeling"); see also Lowe's Home Ctrs., Inc. v. Olin Corp., 313 F.3d 1307, 1310 (11th Cir.2002).

2004This language has been interpreted as prohibiting "any state common law cause of action that rests on an alleged failure to warn or convey information about a product through its label." See In re DuPont-Benlate Litig., 859 F.Supp. 619, 622 (D.P.R.1994); ISK Biotech Corp. v. Douberly, 640 So.2d 85, 88 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)(holding that "FIFRA preempts all state common law actions that are associated in any way with a claim of inadequate labeling"); see also Lowe's Home Ctrs., Inc. v. Olin Corp., 313 F.3d 1307, 1310 (11th Cir.2002). * * * * ...

22
In Re DuPont-Benlate Litigationgreen
prd · 1994 · cited in 2 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004
2 sentences

2004This language has been interpreted as prohibiting "any state common law cause of action that rests on an alleged failure to warn or convey information about a product through its label." See In re DuPont-Benlate Litig., 859 F.Supp. 619, 622 (D.P.R.1994); ISK Biotech Corp. v. Douberly, 640 So.2d 85, 88 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)(holding that "FIFRA preempts all state common law actions that are associated in any way with a claim of inadequate labeling"); see also Lowe's Home Ctrs., Inc. v. Olin Corp., 313 F.3d 1307, 1310 (11th Cir.2002).

2004This language has been interpreted as prohibiting "any state common law cause of action that rests on an alleged failure to warn or convey information about a product through its label." See In re DuPont-Benlate Litig., 859 F.Supp. 619, 622 (D.P.R.1994); ISK Biotech Corp. v. Douberly, 640 So.2d 85, 88 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)(holding that "FIFRA preempts all state common law actions that are associated in any way with a claim of inadequate labeling"); see also Lowe's Home Ctrs., Inc. v. Olin Corp., 313 F.3d 1307, 1310 (11th Cir.2002). * * * * ...

22
ISK Biotech Corp. v. Douberlygreen
fladistctapp · 1994 · cited in 2 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004
2 sentences

2004This language has been interpreted as prohibiting "any state common law cause of action that rests on an alleged failure to warn or convey information about a product through its label." See In re DuPont-Benlate Litig., 859 F.Supp. 619, 622 (D.P.R.1994); ISK Biotech Corp. v. Douberly, 640 So.2d 85, 88 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)(holding that "FIFRA preempts all state common law actions that are associated in any way with a claim of inadequate labeling"); see also Lowe's Home Ctrs., Inc. v. Olin Corp., 313 F.3d 1307, 1310 (11th Cir.2002).

2004This language has been interpreted as prohibiting "any state common law cause of action that rests on an alleged failure to warn or convey information about a product through its label." See In re DuPont-Benlate Litig., 859 F.Supp. 619, 622 (D.P.R.1994); ISK Biotech Corp. v. Douberly, 640 So.2d 85, 88 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)(holding that "FIFRA preempts all state common law actions that are associated in any way with a claim of inadequate labeling"); see also Lowe's Home Ctrs., Inc. v. Olin Corp., 313 F.3d 1307, 1310 (11th Cir.2002). * * * * ...

22

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (2)

CaseCitedYears
CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Easterwood green
scotus · 1993
2 sentences

2015When federal law contains an express preemption clause, our task is to “focus on the plain wording of the clause, which necessarily contains the best evidence of Congress’ preemptive .intent.” Chamber of Commerce of U.S. v. Whiting, 563 U.S. 582 , 131 S.Ct. 1968, 1977 , 179 L.Ed.2d 1031 (2011) (quoting CSX Transp., Inc. v. Easterwood, 507 U.S. 658 , 113 S.Ct. 1732 , 123 L.Ed.2d 387 (1993)). “[W]hen Congress has made its intent known through explicit statutory language, the courts’ task is an easy one.” English v. Gen.

2015When federal law contains an express preemption clause, our task is to “focus on the plain wording of the clause, which necessarily contains the best evidence of Congress’ preemptive .intent.” Chamber of Commerce of U.S. v. Whiting, 563 U.S. 582 , 131 S.Ct. 1968, 1977 , 179 L.Ed.2d 1031 (2011) (quoting CSX Transp., Inc. v. Easterwood, 507 U.S. 658 , 113 S.Ct. 1732 , 123 L.Ed.2d 387 (1993)). “[W]hen Congress has made its intent known through explicit statutory language, the courts’ task is an easy one.” English v. Gen.

22015–2015
State v. Lansing green
fladistctapp · 2012
1 sentence

2025The preemptive scope of the FAAAA is not unlimited; instead, "the state laws whose 'effect' is 'forbidden' under federal law are those with a 'significant impact.' " Joe Nagy Towing, 101 So. 3d at 876 (quoting Rowe v. N.H.

12025–2025

Where else courts name it

CA 45 (1987–2025) PA 23 (1998–2025) TX 21 (1994–2025) OH 12 (1994–2023) IN 11 (1994–2020) NY 10 (1997–2026) WA 9 (1995–2019) IL 9 (2001–2025) AZ 8 (1996–2019) NJ 6 (1994–2026) MN 6 (1986–2019) HI 5 (1997–2023) WI 5 (1996–2020) MO 5 (1999–2017) FL 5 (2004–2025) TN 4 (1997–2013) VT 4 (2006–2016) MI 4 (1996–2017) MD 4 (1987–2019) KS 3 (2007–2018) LA 3 (1996–2012) IA 3 (1998–2025) MS 2 (1997–2002) MA 2 (1995–2023) AL 2 (2015–2016) AK 2 (1995–1997) SC 2 (2009–2012) GA 2 (2007–2022) AR 2 (2009–2025)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check