71 Cited authorities

  1. Wyeth v. Levine

    555 U.S. 555 (2009)   Cited 1,196 times   95 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the FDA's drug labeling judgments pursuant to the FDCA did not obstacle preempt state law products liability claims
  2. Gonzales v. Raich

    545 U.S. 1 (2005)   Cited 955 times   37 Legal Analyses
    Holding that because “Congress had a rational basis” for concluding that a statute implements Commerce Clause power, the statute falls within the scope of congressional “authority to ‘make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper’ to ‘regulate Commerce ... among the several States' ”
  3. Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs' Legal Committee

    531 U.S. 341 (2001)   Cited 996 times   74 Legal Analyses
    Holding that federal drug and medical device laws pre-empted a state tort-law claim based on failure to properly communicate with the FDA
  4. Crosby v. Nat'l Foreign Trade Council

    530 U.S. 363 (2000)   Cited 841 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding State's measure preempted by federal statute that conferred on the President "discretion to exercise economic leverage . . . with an eye toward national security"
  5. Howlett v. Rose

    496 U.S. 356 (1990)   Cited 1,134 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "the State and arms of the State . . . are not subject to suit under § 1983"
  6. Geier v. Am. Honda Motor Co.

    529 U.S. 861 (2000)   Cited 733 times   15 Legal Analyses
    Holding the absence of an express pre-emption clause “does not bar the ordinary working of conflict pre-emption principles”
  7. New York v. United States

    505 U.S. 144 (1992)   Cited 919 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the federal government could not commandeer States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory scheme
  8. Printz v. United States

    521 U.S. 898 (1997)   Cited 698 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Holding unconstitutional a statute obligating state law enforcement officers to implement a federal gun-control law
  9. Gade v. National Solid Wastes Management Ass'n

    505 U.S. 88 (1992)   Cited 798 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that § 653(b) prevents federal preemption of state tort law and worker's compensation schemes
  10. Metromedia, Inc. v. San Diego

    453 U.S. 490 (1981)   Cited 962 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that there can be no “substantial doubt that the twin goals that the ordinance seeks to further—traffic safety and the appearance of the city—are substantial governmental goals”
  11. Section 841 - Prohibited acts A

    21 U.S.C. § 841   Cited 74,550 times   122 Legal Analyses
    Providing penalties for, among other things, possessing a "controlled substance" with intent to distribute it, which sentences vary dramatically depending upon the amount of the drug possessed, without requiring jury determination of the amount
  12. Section 801 - Congressional findings and declarations: controlled substances

    21 U.S.C. § 801   Cited 6,170 times   59 Legal Analyses
    Finding that to effectively control interstate traffic in illegal drugs it is necessary to control intrastate possession of and traffic in those substances
  13. Section 812 - Schedules of controlled substances

    21 U.S.C. § 812   Cited 2,458 times   52 Legal Analyses
    Identifying heroin as a Schedule I controlled substance under subsection (b)
  14. Section 3479 - What constitutes nuisance

    Cal. Civ. Code § 3479   Cited 494 times
    Defining "nuisance"
  15. Section 7

    Cal. Const. art. XI § 7   Cited 293 times
    Providing that " county or city may make and enforce within its limits all local, police, sanitary, and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws"
  16. Section 829 - Prescriptions

    21 U.S.C. § 829   Cited 145 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Requiring valid prescription, issued for a legitimate medical purpose, in dispensing any controlled substance to an "ultimate user"
  17. Section 903 - Application of State law

    21 U.S.C. § 903   Cited 106 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Providing that federal forfeiture law should not be "construed as indicating an intent on the part of Congress to occupy the field in which that provision operates, . . . unless there is a positive conflict" between federal and state law