15 U.S.C. § 1461
Effect upon State law
It is hereby declared that it is the express intent of Congress to supersede any and all laws of the States or political subdivisions thereof insofar as they may now or hereafter provide for the labeling of the net quantity of contents of the package of any consumer commodity covered by this chapter which are less stringent than or require information different from the requirements of section 1453 of this title or regulations promulgated pursuant thereto.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1969–2023 · leading case: Jones v. Rath Packing Co., 430 U.S. 519 (1977).
Jones v. Rath Packing Co., 430 U.S. 519 (1977). “" 15 U. S. C. § 1461 . [31] The Court of Appeals, although recognizing that this section leaves more scope for state law than does the FMIA, concluded that § 12211, as implemented by Art.”
Max Raskin, Robert H. Gollmar, Intervening-Plaintiff-Appellant v. J. Dennis Moran, Ken Timpel, & Charles P. Smith, 684 F.2d 472 (7th Cir. 1982). “Although the FPLA expressly preempts, inter alia, “less stringent” state statutes regulating package labeling, 15 U.S.C. § 1461 (1976), the Court found that the California statute was not less stringent and thus was not expressly preempted.”
Zeran v. Am. Online, Inc., 958 F. Supp. 1124 (E.D. Va. 1997). “§ 1461 (defining the preemptive scope of the federal labeling program) ("It is hereby declared that it is the express intent of Congress to supersede any and all laws of the States or political subdivisions thereof insofar as they may now or hereafter provide for the labeling of…”
Credit Data of Arizona, Inc. v. State of Arizona, 602 F.2d 195 (9th Cir. 1979). “Justice Marshall, in discussing preemption, wrote “[t]he legislative history, however, suggests that the statute [the Federal Fair Packaging and Labeling Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1461 ] expressly preempts as requiring ‘different information’ only state laws which impose requirements…”
Reyes v. Premier Home Funding, Inc., 640 F. Supp. 2d 1147 (N.D. Cal. 2009). “Code § 17200 , and for negligence are preempted under the federal Homeowners’ Loan Act of 1933 (“HOLA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1461 ; (2) Plaintiff has not adequately alleged the ability to tender repayment of his loan for rescission; (3) The CTA does not apply to Plaintiffs loan; (4)…”
L & L Started Pullets, Inc. v. Gourdine, 592 F. Supp. 367 (S.D.N.Y. 1984). “15 U.S.C. § 1461 . Finally, the Shell Egg Graders Handbook of the Poultry and Dairy Division, Food Safety and Quality Service, U.”
Gen. Mills, Inc. v. Jones, 530 F.2d 1317 (9th Cir. 1975). “4069, 4077 on the FPLA, states: Section 12 [ 15 U.S.C. § 1461 ] provides that regulations promulgated under the act shall supersede State law only to the extent that the States impose net quantity of contents labeling requirements which differ from requirements imposed under the…”
Commonwealth v. Haseotes, 249 N.E.2d 639 (Mass. 1969). “15 U.S.C. § 1461 (Supp. III, 1967). 21 U.”
Langbein v. Kirkland, 577 F.2d 1296 (5th Cir. 1978). “In Jones , the Court interpreted a provision of the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1461 (1970), to explicitly pre-empt state law only when compliance with state law would automatically trigger federal enforcement action.”
Simpson v. Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC (M.D. Fla. 2023). “7 The Amended Complaint erroneously identifies the statute as 15 U.S.C. § 1461 . 8 Cases decided by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals before October 1, 1981, are binding precedent in the Eleventh Circuit today.”
Montgomery v. Freedom Mortg. Corp. (D. Maryland 2022). “law) XI Violations of the Consumer Credit Protection Act (“CCPA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1461 (g) XII “Violation of Federal Regulations, Regulation X, 12 C.”
Young v. L'oreal USA, Inc. (S.D.N.Y. 2021). “15 U.S.C. § 1461 (emphasis added). Plaintiffs’ entire suit is based on L’Oréal’s failure to add language to its packaging about the net quantity of product that would be dispensed by the pump, which is a quantity less than the net quantity within the bottle.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.