Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
National Foreign Trade Council, 530 U.S. 363 (2000), that even when a state law is not in direct conflict with a federal law, the state law could still be found unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause if the "state law is an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of Congress's full purposes and objectives". [30]
As of March 2010, legislators in seven states have introduced legislation which would seek to nullify federal legal tender laws in the state by authorizing payment in gold and silver or a paper note backed 100% by gold or silver; the legislation failed in Colorado and Montana. [24]
The federal Constitution created a "plurilegal federal union" in which there are four types of conflicts between different legal systems: federal vs. state, federal vs. foreign, state vs. state, and state vs. foreign. [1]
The law of most of the states is based on the common law of England; the notable exception is Louisiana, whose civil law is largely based upon French and Spanish law.The passage of time has led to state courts and legislatures expanding, overruling, or modifying the common law; as a result, the laws of any given state invariably differ from the laws of its sister states.
Even without a conflict between federal and state law or an express provision for preemption, the courts will infer an intention to preempt state law if the federal regulatory scheme is so pervasive as to "occupy the field" in that area of the law, i.e. to warrant an inference that Congress did not intend the states to supplement it. Gade v.
Federal law is the body of law created by the federal government of a country. A federal government is formed when a group of political units, such as states or provinces join in a federation, delegating their individual sovereignty and many powers to the central government while retaining or reserving other limited powers. As a result, two or ...
Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938), was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision in which the Court held that the United States does not have a general federal common law and that U.S. federal courts must apply state law, not federal law, to lawsuits between parties from different states that do not involve federal questions.
Until 1938, federal courts in the United States followed the doctrine set forth in the 1842 case of Swift v.Tyson. [2] In that case, the U.S. Supreme Court held that federal courts hearing cases brought under their diversity jurisdiction (allowing them to hear cases between parties from different U.S. states) had to apply the statutory law of the states, but not the common law developed by ...