46 U.S.C. § 4306
Federal preemption
Unless permitted by the Secretary under section 4305 of this title, a State or political subdivision of a State may not establish, continue in effect, or enforce a law or regulation establishing a recreational vessel or associated equipment performance or other safety standard or imposing a requirement for associated equipment (except insofar as the State or political subdivision may, in the absence of the Secretary’s disapproval, regulate the carrying or use of marine safety articles to meet uniquely hazardous conditions or circumstances within the State) that is not identical to a regulation prescribed under section 4302 of this title.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 44
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1984–2024 · leading case: Sprietsma v. Mercury Marine, 537 U.S. 51 (2002).
Sprietsma v. Mercury Marine, 537 U.S. 51 (2002). “Section 10 of the Act, as codified in 46 U. S. C. § 4306 , sets forth the Act’s pre-emption clause and thus provides the basis for respondent’s express pre-emption argument.”
Roberts v. United Healthcare Servs., Inc., 2 Cal. App. 5th 132 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016). “518 ] (Sprietsma), which had given the same construction to similar language in the preemption clause in the Federal Boat Safety Act of 1971 ( 46 U.S.C. § 4306 ). (Yarick, at pp. 1165-1166.”
Lady v. Neal Glaser Marine, Inc., 228 F.3d 598 (5th Cir. 2000). “§ 4311 (g), preserves his action. OMC responds that section 4306 and the Coast Guard’s regulatory decisions both expressly and impliedly preempt Lady’s common-law tort claims, because subjecting OMC to a damage award would result in varying state requirements for recreational…”
Allen Miller v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., 976 F.3d 1016 (9th Cir. 2020). “51, 63 (2002) (holding that 46 U.S.C. § 4306 , which prohibits the States from “establish[ing], continu[ing] in effect, or enforc[ing] a law or regulation establishing a .”
Sprietsma v. Mercury Marine, 757 N.E.2d 75 (Ill. 2001). “Express Preemption Keeping in mind the preceding preemption principles, we first address *81 whether the FBSA expressly preempts Sprietsma's common law tort claims against Mercury Marine.”
Nw., Inc. v. Ginsberg, 134 S. Ct. 1422 (2014). “The Boat Safety Act provision applies only to "a law or regulation," 46 U.S.C. § 4306 , whereas the ADA provision, as just explained, is much more broadly worded.”
Sikkelee Ex Rel. Est. of Sikkelee v. Precision Airmotive Corp., 822 F.3d 680 (3rd Cir. 2016). “§ 30103 (b)(1); 46 U.S.C. § 4306 . Despite these clauses, however, the Supreme Court still conducted a conflict preemption analysis in Geier and Sprietsma rather than a field preemption analysis because it determined that, while an express preemption clause may indicate some…”
Shields v. Outboard Marine Corp., 776 F. Supp. 1579 (M.D. Ga. 1991). “46 U.S.C. § 4306 . The Act also contains a “savings clause” stating that compliance with the law will not relieve a person from liability at either common or state law.”
Lewis v. Brunswick Corp., 107 F.3d 1494 (11th Cir. 1997). “See 46 U.S.C. § 4306 . Therefore, the issue in this case is not whether Congress intended for the FBSA to have any preemptive effect, but the intended scope of preemption — the extent to which the FBSA preempts state law.”
Joan Carstensen v. Brunswick Corp., Mercury Marine Corp., & Sea Ray Boats, Inc., 49 F.3d 430 (8th Cir. 1995). “Carstensen argues on appeal that the FBSA preemption clause, 46 U.S.C. § 4306 , does not expressly preempt her common law claims and that its savings clause, 46 U.”
Farner v. Brunswick Corp., 607 N.E.2d 562 (Ill. App. Ct. 1992). “” ( 46 U.S.C. §4306 (1988).) Section 4311(g), which the parties characterize as a “savings clause,” provides: “Compliance with this chapter [ 46 U.”
Brown v. United Airlines, Inc., 720 F.3d 60 (1st Cir. 2013). “But this is not a knockout blow; the ADA preemption provision — unlike the provision *65 at issue in Sprietsma, see 46 U.S.C. § 4306 — goes beyond a bare reference to state laws and regulations.”
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.