§Why CasetextPricing

RIVERSIDE, CITY OF v. INLAND EMPIRE PATIENT'S HEALTH AND WELLNESS CENTER

Respondent's Answer Brief on the Merits

71 Cited authorities

  1. Wyeth v. Levine

    555 U.S. 555 (2009)   Cited 1,429 times   101 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 1,142 times   46 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 1,180 times   80 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 982 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a state Burma sanctions bill conflicted with a federal Burma sanctions bill because it undermined Congress's delegation to the President of "flexible and effective authority" to adjust all sanctions in response to changing conditions

  5. Howlett v. Rose

    496 U.S. 356 (1990)   Cited 1,367 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 786 times   16 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 991 times   14 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 760 times   17 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 887 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "nonapproved state regulation of occupational safety and health issues for which a federal standard is in effect is impliedly preempted" by OSHA's standard

  10. Metromedia, Inc. v. San Diego

    453 U.S. 490 (1981)   Cited 1,029 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that traffic safety is a "substantial governmental goal"

  11. Section 841 - Prohibited acts A

    21 U.S.C. § 841   Cited 90,528 times   145 Legal Analyses
    In § 841 prosecutions, then, it is the fact that the doctor issued an unauthorized prescription that renders his or her conduct wrongful, not the fact of the dispensation itself.

  12. Section 801 - Congressional findings and declarations: controlled substances

    21 U.S.C. § 801   Cited 7,239 times   76 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 2,803 times   72 Legal Analyses
    Criminalizing heroin

  14. Section 3479 - What constitutes nuisance

    Cal. Civ. Code § 3479   Cited 619 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Defining "nuisance"

  15. Section 7

    Cal. Const. art. XI § 7   Cited 443 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 170 times   17 Legal Analyses
    Authorizing prescriptions for drugs on Schedule II, III, IV, and V only

  17. Section 903 - Application of State law

    21 U.S.C. § 903   Cited 119 times   5 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