International Shoe Co. v. Pinkus

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that “[s]tates may not pass or enforce laws to interfere with or complement the Bankruptcy Act or provide additional or auxiliary regulations”
• holding that “intolerable inconsistencies and confusion would result” if an Arkansas insolvency law was given effect while the National Bankruptcy Act was in force
• holding that “intolerable inconsistencies and confusion would result” if an Arkansas insolvency law was given effect while the National Bankruptcy Act was in force
• holding that a state statute which governed “the distribution of property of insolvents for the payment of their debts and provid[ed] for their discharge” was preempted under the doctrine of field preemption
• noting that the intent of Congress in establishing uniform bankruptcy laws necessarily excludes inconsistent state regulation
• noting that the intent of Congress in establishing uniform bankruptcy law necessarily excludes incon sistent state regulation

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).