Hester v. CSX Transportation, Inc.

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 preempted where federal funds merely participate, regardless of whether that participation is significant
• holding that the plaintiffs state law claims were preempted under (b)(4) because federal funds had been previously approved and expended to install passive warning devices
• “The fact that federal funds participated in the installation of the warning devices legally presupposes that the Secretary approved and authorized that expenditure, which in turn legally presupposes that the Secretary determined that the safety devices installed were adequate to their task.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).