§Why CasetextPricing

We Are America/Somos America Coalition of Arizona et al v.Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, et al.

RESPONSE to Motion re First MOTION for Summary Judgment

21 Cited authorities

  1. United States v. Salerno

    481 U.S. 739 (1987)   Cited 5,434 times   15 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "extensive safeguards" are necessary "to repel a facial challenge"

  2. Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr

    518 U.S. 470 (1996)   Cited 2,419 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"

  3. Wyeth v. Levine

    555 U.S. 555 (2009)   Cited 1,434 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

  4. Pennzoil Co. v. Texaco Inc.

    481 U.S. 1 (1987)   Cited 2,258 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a federal court may not enjoin execution of a state court judgment pending appeal of that judgment to a state appellate court

  5. Fidelity Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. De La Cuesta

    458 U.S. 141 (1982)   Cited 1,605 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a regulation authorizing federal savings-and-loan associations to include due-on-sale clauses in mortgage contracts conflicted with a state-court doctrine that such clauses were un-enforceable

  6. Bates v. Dow Agrosciences LLC

    544 U.S. 431 (2005)   Cited 549 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a preemption clause barring state laws "in addition to or different" from a federal Act does not interfere with an "equivalent" state provision

  7. Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting

    563 U.S. 582 (2011)   Cited 331 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Congress’s express reservation of state authority to impose certain civil sanctions means what it says

  8. Fla. Avocado Growers v. Paul

    373 U.S. 132 (1963)   Cited 1,569 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding federal regulation concerning maturity of avocados did not preempt California regulation, where it was not impossible for growers to comply with both regulations

  9. Hines v. Davidowitz

    312 U.S. 52 (1941)   Cited 2,186 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Alien Registration Act of 1940 preempted Pennsylvania's alien registration requirements

  10. Schneidewind v. ANR Pipeline Co.

    485 U.S. 293 (1988)   Cited 390 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the federal Natural Gas Act preempts Michigan's state law regulating the issuance of long-term securities because Michigan's regulation "impinges on a field that the federal regulatory scheme has occupied"

  11. Section 1324 - Bringing in and harboring certain aliens

    8 U.S.C. § 1324   Cited 3,355 times   43 Legal Analyses
    Holding liable any person who "transports . . . or attempts to transport" an alien who has entered the United States in violation of the law

  12. Section 13-1003 - Conspiracy; classification

    Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1003   Cited 152 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Stating "conspiracy is an offense of the same class as the most serious offense which is the object of or result of the conspiracy"

  13. Section 13-2319 - Smuggling; classification; definitions

    Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-2319   Cited 20 times   1 Legal Analyses

    A. It is unlawful for a person to intentionally engage in the smuggling of human beings for profit or commercial purpose. B. A violation of this section is a class 4 felony. C. Notwithstanding subsection B of this section, a violation of this section: 1. Is a class 2 felony if the human being who is smuggled is under eighteen years of age and is not accompanied by a family member over eighteen years of age or the offense involved the use of a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument. 2. Is a class 3

  14. Section 13-1006 - Effect of immunity, irresponsibility or incapacity of a party to solicitation, conspiracy or facilitation

    Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1006   Cited 8 times

    A. It is not a defense to a prosecution for solicitation, conspiracy or facilitation that a person solicited, facilitated or with whom the defendant conspired could not be guilty of committing the offense because: 1. Such person is, by definition of the offense, legally incapable in an individual capacity of committing the offense; or 2. Such person is not criminally responsible as defined in chapter 5 of this title, or has an immunity to prosecution or conviction for the commission of the offense;