ERISA preemption clause (Illinois) · Go Syfert
← Illinois issues

ERISA preemption clause in Illinois

5 Illinois opinions name it 1 courts 1992–2011 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Illinois 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 (0)

CaseFollowedCited
No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois.

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

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

Also cited on this issue (3)

CaseCitedYears
Forsberg v. Bovis Lend Lease, Inc. green
utahctapp · 2008
2 sentences

2011Forsberg, 2008 UT App 146, ¶ 20 , 184 P.3d 610 . ¶ 36 After thoroughly chronicling ERISA preemption jurisprudence, the Court of Appeals of Utah noted that Travelers had “sent a strong message to the lower courts that section [1144](a) was subject to significant limitations and that any challenge to a state law of general application affecting an area of traditional state concern must overcome a strong presumption that Congress did not intend to preempt it” and that “most courts after 1995 have held that ERISA does not preempt mechanic’s lien laws or contractors’ bond statutes of general applic

2011Forsberg, 2008 UT App 146, ¶ 20 , 184 P.3d 610 . ¶ 36 After thoroughly chronicling ERISA preemption jurisprudence, the Court of Appeals of Utah noted that Travelers had “sent a strong message to the lower courts that section [1144](a) was subject to significant limitations and that any challenge to a state law of general application affecting an area of traditional state concern must overcome a strong presumption that Congress did not intend to preempt it” and that “most courts after 1995 have held that ERISA does not preempt mechanic’s lien laws or contractors’ bond statutes of general applic

22011–2011
California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement v. Dillingham Construction, N. A. green
scotus · 1997
2 sentences

1999He chastised the majority for not forthrightly acknowledging that the holdings of the pre-Travelers cases “have in effect been abandoned.” Dillingham, 519 U.S. at 335 , 136 L.

1999He chastised the majority for not forthrightly acknowledging that the holdings of the pre-Travelers cases “have in effect been abandoned.” Dillingham, 519 U.S. at 335 , 136 L.

21999–1999
FMC Corp. v. Holliday green
scotus · 1990
2 sentences

1992(F M C Corp. v. Holliday (1990), 498 U.S. 52, 58 , 112 L.

1992(F M C Corp. v. Holliday (1990), 498 U.S. 52, 58 , 112 L.

11992–1992

Statutes the citing opinions construe

USC § 29u.s.c.1001 (5) USC § 29u.s.c.1144 (5) USC § 29u.s.c.1002 (4)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

MI 5 (1988–2017) IL 5 (1992–2011) MA 4 (1993–2024) CA 3 (1991–2005) NY 3 (1992–2025) CT 2 (1984–1996) NJ 2 (2002–2020) AL 2 (1989–1994) HI 2 (2006–2015)

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