24 Cited authorities

Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr
518 U.S. 470 (1996) Cited 2,412 times 35 Legal Analyses
Holding that the presence of a state-law damages remedy for violations of FDA requirements does not impose an additional requirement upon medical device manufacturers but "merely provides another reason for manufacturers to comply with . . . federal law"
English v. General Electric Co.
496 U.S. 72 (1990) Cited 1,312 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding that a tort arising from whistleblower retaliation at a nuclear facility was insufficiently related to radiological safety aspects in the facility's operation
Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Massachusetts
471 U.S. 724 (1985) Cited 1,515 times 10 Legal Analyses
Holding that the National Labor Relations Act does not permit “unions and employers to bargain for terms of employment that state law forbids employers to establish unilaterally”
Hillsborough County v. Automated Medical Labs
471 U.S. 707 (1985) Cited 1,189 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding local health ordinance not preempted because "the regulation of health and safety matters is primarily, and historically, a matter of local concern"
San Diego Unions v. Garmon
359 U.S. 236 (1959) Cited 2,543 times 32 Legal Analyses
Holding that "the States as well as the federal court must defer to the exclusive competence of the National Labor Relations Board" if "an activity is arguably subject to § 7 or § 8 of the [NLRA]"
Golden State Transit Corp. v. Los Angeles
493 U.S. 103 (1989) Cited 717 times
Holding with regard to the National Labor Relations Act, a statute enacted pursuant to the Commerce Clause rather than the Spending Clause, that a right implied from the structure of the statute but not explicitly stated is enforceable under § 1983
Wisconsin Public Intervenor v. Mortier
501 U.S. 597 (1991) Cited 506 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that respondent could not rely on theory that compliance with FIFRA and local ordinances regulating pesticides was a physical impossibility
City of Columbus v. Ours Garage Wreckerservice, Inc.
536 U.S. 424 (2002) Cited 240 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that presumptions from negative implication "grow weaker with each difference in the formulation of the provisions under inspection."
Retail Clerks v. Schermerhorn
373 U.S. 746 (1963) Cited 786 times
Concluding that—under Section 14(b) and the rule announced in General Motors Corp .—states may ban "agency shop" agreements by which employees have an "obligation to pay initiation fees and regular dues, ....[w]hatever may be the status of less stringent union-security arrangements ...."
Machinists v. Wisconsin Emp. Rel. Comm'n
427 U.S. 132 (1976) Cited 463 times 16 Legal Analyses
Holding that state law is preempted where it would upset the congressionally defined balance of power between management and labor by regulating activity Congress deliberately left unregulated
Section 14501 - Federal authority over intrastate transportation
49 U.S.C. § 14501 Cited 676 times 31 Legal Analyses
Granting a limited exemption to a state or its political subdivisions from the federally preempted regulation of the towing industry by permitting a state or its political subdivisions to regulate nonconsent tow fees
Section 164 - Construction of provisions
29 U.S.C. § 164 Cited 428 times 6 Legal Analyses
Providing that federal law does not authorize union security clauses in right-to-work states
Section 136v - Authority of States
7 U.S.C. § 136v Cited 340 times 3 Legal Analyses
Permitting state regulation of pesticides "but only if and to the extent the regulation does not permit any sale or use prohibited by this subchapter"

United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America et al v. Hardin County, Kentucky et al

24 Cited authorities

Holding that the presence of a state-law damages remedy for violations of FDA requirements does not impose an additional requirement upon medical device manufacturers but "merely provides another reason for manufacturers to comply with . . . federal law"

Holding that a tort arising from whistleblower retaliation at a nuclear facility was insufficiently related to radiological safety aspects in the facility's operation

Holding that the National Labor Relations Act does not permit “unions and employers to bargain for terms of employment that state law forbids employers to establish unilaterally”

Holding local health ordinance not preempted because "the regulation of health and safety matters is primarily, and historically, a matter of local concern"

Holding that "the States as well as the federal court must defer to the exclusive competence of the National Labor Relations Board" if "an activity is arguably subject to § 7 or § 8 of the [NLRA]"

Holding with regard to the National Labor Relations Act, a statute enacted pursuant to the Commerce Clause rather than the Spending Clause, that a right implied from the structure of the statute but not explicitly stated is enforceable under § 1983

Holding that respondent could not rely on theory that compliance with FIFRA and local ordinances regulating pesticides was a physical impossibility

Holding that presumptions from negative implication "grow weaker with each difference in the formulation of the provisions under inspection."

Concluding that—under Section 14(b) and the rule announced in General Motors Corp .—states may ban "agency shop" agreements by which employees have an "obligation to pay initiation fees and regular dues, ....[w]hatever may be the status of less stringent union-security arrangements ...."

Holding that state law is preempted where it would upset the congressionally defined balance of power between management and labor by regulating activity Congress deliberately left unregulated

Granting a limited exemption to a state or its political subdivisions from the federally preempted regulation of the towing industry by permitting a state or its political subdivisions to regulate nonconsent tow fees

Providing that federal law does not authorize union security clauses in right-to-work states

Permitting state regulation of pesticides "but only if and to the extent the regulation does not permit any sale or use prohibited by this subchapter"