Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Altria Group, Inc. Vs. Good

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Dec 15, 2008

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

66 entries 7 linked 59 unlinked
Show
  1. Medtronic, Inc. Vs. Lohr US Supreme Court · Apr 23, 1996
  2. Relied / Followed
  3. Clark Vs. Martinez US Supreme Court · Jan 12, 2005
  4. American Airlines, Inc. Vs. Wolens US Supreme Court · Jan 18, 1995
  5. Freightliner Corp. Vs. Myrick US Supreme Court · Apr 18, 1995
  6. Safeco Ins. Co. of America Vs. Burr US Supreme Court · Jun 04, 2007
  7. Lorillard Tobacco Co. Vs. Reilly US Supreme Court · Jun 28, 2001
  8. Syllabus October Term, 2008 Altria Group, Inc. V. Good
    Search
  9. s express language or through its structure and purpose. See Jones v. Rath
    Search
  10. Bates v. Dow
    Search
  11. b). As determined in Cipollone v. Liggett
    Search
  12. Group, Inc. , 505 U. S. 504 , and Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly
    Search
  13. that the express pre-emption framework of Cipollone and Reilly should be rejected. American Airlines, Inc. v. Wolens
    Search
  14. U. S. 219 , and Riegel v. Medtronic
    Search
  15. J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Roberts, C. J., and Scalia and Alito, JJ., joined. Altria Group, Inc. v. Good
    Search
  16. Opinion of the Court Altria Group, Inc. V. Good
    Search
  17. Supreme Court of the United States No. 07-562 Altria Group, Inc., Et Al., Petitioners V. Stephanie
    Search
  18. state-law cause of action. Relying on our decisions in Cipollone v. Liggett
    Search
  19. Group, Inc. , 505 U. S. 504 (1992), and Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly
    Search
  20. s warning neutralization claim and thus found it expressly pre-empted. Brown v. Brown
    Search
  21. Maryland v. Louisiana
    Search
  22. U. S. 470 , 485 (1996) (quoting Retail Clerks v. Schermerhorn
    Search
  23. to occupy the legislative field, or if there is an actual conflict between state and federal law. Freightliner Corp. v. Myrick
    Search
  24. Rice v. Santa
    Search
  25. Petitioners also contend that the plurality opinion is inconsistent with our decisions in American Airlines, Inc. v. Wolens
    Search
  26. U. S. 219 (1995), and Riegel v. Medtronic
    Search
  27. is a broad one. Morales v. Trans
    Search
  28. describes a more direct relationship, see Safeco Ins. Co. of America v. Burr
    Search
  29. agency nonenforcement of a federal statute is not the same as a policy of approval. Cf. Sprietsma v. Mercury
    Search
  30. Cipollone v. Liggett
    Search
  31. Cipollone , and it is in any event even more easily distinguishable from this case than American Airlines, Inc. v. Wolens
    Search
  32. s express pre-emption provisions. See also Rowe v. New
    Search
  33. Thomas, J., Dissenting Altria Group, Inc. V. Good
    Search
  34. Scalia, and Justice Alito join, dissenting. This appeal requires the Court to revisit its decision in Cipollone v. Liggett
    Search
  35. s atextual approach to express pre-emption generally, Riegel v. Medtronic
    Search
  36. b) of the Labeling Act specifically, Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly
    Search
  37. CTS Corp. v. Dynamics
    Search
  38. Texas v. Brown
    Search
  39. Whiteley v. Philip
    Search
  40. Swift & Co. v. Wickham
    Search
  41. quoting Payne v. Tennessee
    Search
  42. Sprietsma v. Mercury
    Search
  43. also have refrained from invoking the presumption in the context of express pre-emption. See, e.g. , Rowe v. New
    Search
  44. Engine Mfrs. Assn. v. South
    Search
  45. Geier v. American
    Search
  46. invoked the presumption sporadically during this time frame. As the majority notes, ante, at 5, Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr
    Search
  47. a)(1), and did not employ any presumption against pre-emption. Riegel v. Medtronic
    Search
  48. of the presumption to determine that the regulations at issue were not pre-empted. See Consolidated Cigar Corp. v. Reilly
    Search
  49. The majority also relies on Bates v. Dow
    Search
  50. slip op., at 1) (quoting Oncale v. Sundowner
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial