333 N.J. Super. 332 - State v. Rackis’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 state decisions

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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Under the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution U.S. Const., art. VI, cl. 2, the laws of the United States "shall be the supreme law of the land." As such, state laws that "`interfere with, or are contrary to the laws of congress, made in pursuance of the constitution' are invalid." Wisconsin Pub. Intervenor v. Mortier, 501 U.S. 597, 604 , 111 S.Ct. 2476, 2481 , 115 L. Ed. 2d 532, 542 (1991) (quoting Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1, 211 , 6 L.Ed. 23, 73-74 , 9 Wheat 1 (1824)); see Vail v. Pan Am Corp., 260 N.J.Super. 292, 297 , 616 A. 2d 523 (App.Div.1992). The primary "focus of analysis is on the intent of Congress." Miranda v. Fridman, 276 N.J.Super. 20, 25 , 647 A. 2d 167 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 138 N.J. 271 , 649 A. 2d 1291 (1994). Federal preemption may be express, ... or implied where Congress suggests an intent to occupy an entire field to the exclusion of state legislation.... Even when it is clear Congress has not fully occupied a field, state law will still be preempted if it is in actual conflict with federal law.... Thus, state law must yield to federal law where "`compliance with both federal and state regulations is a physical impossibility,' or where state law `stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.'" Gade v. National Solid Wastes Management Ass'n, 505 U.S. 88, 98 , 112 S.Ct. 2374, 2383 , 120 L. Ed. 2d 73, 84 (1992) (quoting Schneidewind v. ANR Pipeline Co., 485 U.S. 293, 299-300 ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 365 N.J. Super. 356 - State v. Wahl

2. “No provision of this chapter shall be construed as indicating an intent on the part of the Congress to occupy the field in which such provision operates to the exclusion of the law of any State on the same subject matter, unless there is a direct and positive conflict between such provision and the law of the State so that the two cannot be reconciled or consistently stand together. [ 18 U.S.C.A. § 927 (emphasis added).]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 365 N.J. Super. 356 - State v. Wahl

3. “governs all aspects of firearm control including unlawful acts, licensing, penalties, exceptions, relief from disabilities, and rules and regulations[,]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 365 N.J. Super. 356 - State v. Wahl