Farina v. Nokia Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
625 F.3d 97 · 2010
Citation profile
28 federal appellate · 9 district · 2 state decisions
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) · 28 U.S.C. § 1446 · 28 U.S.C. § 1447 · 28 U.S.C. § 1453 (§ 5 of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) · 42 U.S.C. § 4321 (§ 2 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969) · 42 U.S.C. § 4332 (§ 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969) · 47 U.S.C. § 151
Relies on Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · New York Times Co. v. Sullivan · Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment · Skidmore v. Swift & Co. · San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon
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 85 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The reason why state law conflicts with federal law in these balancing situations is plain. When Congress charges an agency with balancing competing objectives, it intends the agency to use its reasoned judgment to weigh the relevant considerations and determine how best to prioritize between these objectives. Allowing state law to impose a different standard permits a re-balancing of those considerations. A state-law standard that is more protective of one objective may result in a standard that is less protective of others.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Federal law can preempt state law in three ways: (1) express preemption, (2) field preemption, and (3) conflict preemption. Hillsborough Cty. v. Automated Med. Labs., Inc. , 471 U.S. 707 , 713, 105 S.Ct. 2371 , 85 L.Ed.2d 714 (1985). Express preemption applies where Congress, through a statute's express language, declares its intent to displace state law. Id. Field preemption applies where "the federal interest is so dominant that the federal system will be assumed to preclude enforcement of state laws on the same subject." Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Conflict preemption nullifies state law inasmuch as it conflicts with federal law, either where compliance with both laws is impossible or where state law erects an "obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress." Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“compliance with both federal and state regulations is a physical impossibility ... or when state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.