Citation network
English Vs. General Elec. Co.
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 04, 1990
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
English v. GeneralSearch
-
Elec. Co. - 496 U.S. 72 (1990) U.S. Supreme Court English v. GeneralSearch
-
Elec. Co., 496 U.S. 72 (1990) English v. GeneralSearch
-
After reviewing the relevant statutory provisions and legislative history, the Court in Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. StateSearch
-
decisions made by those who build and run nuclear facilities is not sufficiently direct and substantial, cf. Silkwood v. Kerr-McGeeSearch
-
Ibid. Because of an apparent conflict with a decision of the First Circuit, see Norris v. Lumbermen'sSearch
-
circumstances. First, Congress can define explicitly the extent to which its enactments preempt state law. See Shaw v. DeltaSearch
-
Preemption Page 496 U. S. 79 fundamentally is a question of congressional intent, see Schneidewind v. ANRSearch
-
Rice v. SantaSearch
-
Jones v. RathSearch
-
Packing Co., 430 U. S. 519 , 430 U. S. 525 (1977), quoting Rice v. SantaSearch
-
a private party to comply with both state and federal requirements, see, e.g., Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. PaulSearch
-
U. S. 52 , 312 U. S. 67 (1941). See also Maryland v. LouisianaSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
to consider the extent to which Congress has preempted the field of nuclear safety. In Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. StateSearch
-
nuclear power reactors under the strict supervision of the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). See Duke Power Co. v. CarolinaSearch
-
acquisition, possession, and use of all nuclear materials. As was observed in Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NaturalSearch
-
Farmer v. CarpentersSearch
-
to place petitioner's claim in the preempted field. This result is strongly suggested by the decision in Silkwood v. Kerr-McGeeSearch
-
intent on the part of Congress to preempt tort claims like petitioner's. Cf. Goodyear Atomic Corp. v. MillerSearch
-
Hillsborough County v. AutomatedSearch
-
would be served by preempting state law only to the extent that it afforded recovery to such violators. See Norris v. Lumbermen'sSearch
-
California v. ARCSearch
-
Savage v. JonesSearch
-
Nuron Cement Co. v. DetroitSearch
-
she was subjected to a continuing course of retaliatory harassment after the May 15 disciplinary decision. English v. WhitfieldSearch
-
state legislatures and courts were unable to provide an informed and coherent labor policy. See Motor Coach Employees v. LockridgeSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court English v. GeneralSearch
-
Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. StateSearch
-
Silkwood v. Kerr-McGeeSearch
-
Norris v. Lumbermen'sSearch
-
See Shaw v. DeltaSearch
-
Schneidewind v. ANRSearch
-
Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. PaulSearch
-
Maryland v. LouisianaSearch
-
In Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. StateSearch
-
of the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). See Duke Power Co. v. CarolinaSearch
-
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NaturalSearch
-
Cf. Goodyear Atomic Corp. v. MillerSearch
-
See Norris v. Lumbermen'sSearch
-
Savage v. JonesSearch
-
English v. WhitfieldSearch
-
See Motor Coach Employees v. LockridgeSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial