T & v. Associates Inc v. Director of Health and Human Services

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “in the preemption context, the Supreme Court understands ‘related to’ or ‘relating to’ as having a ‘broad preemptive purpose’”
• holding that “a common law negligence claim enforced against a broker is not a law that is ‘with respect to motor vehicles’” and falls outside the safety exception
• holding that state-law negligent hiring claim was “expressly preempted by § 14501(c)(1)”
• finding that “the connection here—between a broker hiring standard and motor vehicles—is too attenuated to be saved under § 14501(c)(2)(A)”
• noting that the safety exception cannot apply to negligence claims against brokers, in part, because the safety exception explicitly references carriers but not brokers
• finding that “the connection here—between a broker hiring standard and motor vehicles—is too attenuated to be saved under § 14501(c)(2)(A)”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).