Bic Pen Corp. v. Carter Ex Rel. Carter

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that “state law is impliedly preempted if it 'actually conflicts with federal law or regulations,' because ... state law obstructs accomplishing and executing Congress’ full purposes and objectives”
• holding that “state law is impliedly preempted if it ‘actually conflicts with federal law or regulations,’ because . . . state law obstructs accomplishing and executing Congress’ full purposes and objectives”
• holding that A state law is impliedly preempted if it > actually conflicts with federal law or regulations, = because . . . state law obstructs accomplishing and executing Congress = full purposes and objectives @
• observing under the Supremacy Clause “when a state law conflicts with federal law, it is preempted and has no effect.”
• applying Geier- type analysis in review of extensive regulatory scheme for child-resistant cigarette lighters similar to that in Geier and holding the design-defect claim relating to cigarette lighter was impliedly preempted
• “The [CPSC] specifically noted that a higher ( [ninety] percent

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).