NYCTL 2011-A Trust v. Master Sheet Co., Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that where a regulation “is directed at the conduct of employers, not the United States or its agents, [then] no federal activity is regulated”
• explaining that intergovernmental immunity “is not implicated when a state merely references or even singles out federal activities in an otherwise innocuous enactment”
• concluding that court 17 || of appeals did not have jurisdiction over appeal of a dismissal order where the district court 18 not grant defendant’s motion to dismiss in its entirety and thus order was not a full 19 || adjudication of the issues
• finding certain California laws enacted for the purposes of protecting migrants did not unconstitutionally conflict with federal immigration law
• “We are not prepared, in the first instance, to affirm the district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction … based on [balance of equities and public interest] considerations.”
• “[T]he United States argues that Section 1373 actually applies to more information than just immigration status . . . . We disagree.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).