Mills v. Warner Lambert Co.’s Empirical Analysis
2005
Citation profile
16 state decisions
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Texas Court of Appeals, 9th District (Beaumont))
Relationships
Applies 21 U.S.C. § 379R (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 1132 (§ 502 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974)
Relies on San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon · Metropolitan Life Insurance v. Taylor · Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc. · Maryland v. Louisiana · Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. San Diego County District Council of Carpenters
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[fjederal preemption “is ordinarily a federal defense to the plaintiffs suit” but does not ordinarily deprive a state court of jurisdiction. Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 481 U.S. 58, 68 , 107 S.Ct. 1542 , 95 L.Ed.2d 55 (1987). As a result, “[tjhere are thus some cases in which a state law cause of action is preempted, but only a state court has jurisdiction to so rule.” Romney v. Lin, 105 F.3d 806, 818 (2d Cir.1997) (denying rehearing). Consequently, we disagree with the court of appeals’ conclusion that federal preemption, without more, would necessarily deprive the trial court of jurisdiction.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“complete” preemption, a state court may retain concurrent jurisdiction over a claim, the distinction is not particularly relevant to the issue in this case. It is section 1132(e)(1) which specifies when there is exclusive federal jurisdiction. See 29 U.S.C. § 1132 (e)(1). 4 . We note that the exercise of exclusive federal jurisdiction derives from the forum-preempting language of section 502(a), rather than the existence of a preemption defense. See 29 U.S.C. § 1132 (e)(1) (”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“It is clearly within Congress’ powers to establish an exclusive federal forum to adjudicate issues of federal law in a particular area that Congress has the authority to regulate under the Constitution. Whether it has done so in a specific case is the question that must be answered when a party claims that a state court’s jurisdiction is pre-empted.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Graber v. Fuqua
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.