Sentences with phrase «with preemption»

States take issue with preemption.

However, Danforth fits with the preemption theme, because it addresses a state - federal conflicts question: whether the U.S. Supreme Court or the states have the final word on whether a Supreme Court decision in a criminal matter has retroactive effect.

Not exact matches

The Securities Division is now proposing rules to require the filing of a notice filing form, a consent to service of process, and the fees that would otherwise be required in connection with the registration of these securities offerings but for preemption by the Securities and Exchange Commission.

With inflation and inflation expectations below target and declining, there would be little case for preemption even if inflation above target was a serious problem.

• «If the [FEC] does decide to consider the state party's request for a preemption determination, it should find that the SEEC is not precluded from enforcing its pay - to - play laws with respect to the Malloy mailer and others like it.

In near - perfect preemption, the governor on Wednesday issued an executive order requiring agencies to reduce contracts with private consultants by 10 percent before their potential renewal.

Judge Carlos Lucero, in a partial dissent, argued against such immunity: «The notion that a device manufacturer is immune from liability for harm caused by its device when the manufacturer has pushed the device for a use that the [U.S. Food and Drug Administration] never approved is neither logical nor consistent with the Supreme Court's prior rulings about the scope of preemption of claims arising from harm caused by medical devices.»

Agencies must construe statutes to preempt State law only where there is express preemption or «clear evidence» that Congress intended preemption, or State action «conflicts with» Federal action.

The preemption provisions upset the historical federal - state balance in financial regulation, wrongfully interfere with traditional state enforcement authority, and frustrate the ability of state regulators to protect student borrowers who rely on federal student loan programs.

In a concession to animal advocates, the Arizona preemption bill included a disclosure requirement — stores must label each animal's cage with information about the breeder, including the USDA license number.

In recent years, a wave of preemption laws crafted by ALEC with the support of retailers, fast food companies and other major employers, have been implemented in states across the country to block increases in the minimum wage and efforts to enact paid sick days.

Problems will no doubt arise, including legal obstacles such as possible Federal preemption or litigation associated with the so - called Dormant Commerce Clause.

Problems will no doubt arise, including legal obstacles such as possible Federal preemption or litigation associated with the so ‑ called Dormant Commerce Clause.

«Strengthening Defense Positions Despite Regulatory Changes Made by the Obama Administration: Overcoming Preemption Hurdles, Accepting Proposed TSCA Changes, and Coming to Terms with Chemical Bans,» American Conference Institute's Chemical Products Liability and Environmental Litigation, Chicago, April 2010

A federal act would, of course, obviate the preemption problem, or at least replace it with issues of reconciling two federal statutes — which would be a somewhat less daunting a challenge.

We discussed this issue during our consultation with state representatives, who generally accepted our approach to the preemption issue.

Response: The concern underlying this comment is that ERISA plans, which are not now subject to certain state laws because of the «field» preemption provision of ERISA but which are subject to the rules below, will become subject to state privacy laws that are «more stringent» than the federal requirements, due to the operation of section 1178 (a)(2)(B), together with section 264 (c)(2).

Moreover, section 4 (b) of the Executive Order authorizes preemption of state law in the federal rule making context when there is «the exercise of state authority is directly conflicts with the exercise of federal authority under federal statute * * *.»

Response: The NPRM described only the preemption standards that apply with respect to the statutory provisions of HIPAA that were implemented by the proposed rule.

Since there must first be a conflict between a state law and a federal requirement in order for an issue of preemption to even arise, we think that, as a practical matter, few preemption questions should arise with respect to sections 1178 (b) and 1178 (c).

We also disagree with commenters who suggest that the approach in the final rule is contrary to the preemption provisions in HIPAA.

Comment: Numerous comments stated support for the proposal at proposed Subpart B to issue advisory opinions with respect to the preemption of state laws relating to the privacy of individually identifiable health information.

Comment: Several comments stated that, as drafted, the preemption provisions would be effective as of the rule's effective date (i.e., 60 days following publication), even though covered entities would not be required to comply with the rules for at least another two years.

If the preemption provisions of this regulation do not apply, the covered entity must comply with the requirements or limitations established by such other law, regulation or judicial precedent.

The preemption analysis set out above with respect to ERISA applies equally to the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program.

One commenter suggested that the exception determination process would result in a very costly and laborious and sometimes inconsistent analysis of the occasions in which state law would Start Printed Page 82580survive federal preemption, and thus suggested the final privacy regulations preempt state law with only limited exceptions, such as reporting child abuse.

Even with respect to state laws relating to the privacy of medical information, the statute shields such state laws from preemption by the federal standards only if they are «more» stringent than the related federal standard or implementation specification.

Coventry Health Care v. Nevils (Does the Federal Employee Health Benefits Act's express - preemption provision preempt state laws that prevent carriers from seeking subrogation or reimbursement and, if so, is preemption by contract consistent with the Supremacy Clause)(co-counsel on the merits)

With respect to preemption under sections 1178 (b) and 1178 (c)(the carve - outs for state public health laws and state regulation of health plans), we do not agree that preemption is likely to be a major cause of uncertainty.

I agree with the argument that the federal government's authority under the preemption clause will prevail over the Arizona state law... Otherwise we could have 50 states writing immigration laws and it would result in the chaos that the preemption clause was specifically created to prevent.»

The majority opinion clearly states that Wyeth must comply with both state and federal law in labeling its drugs and that the language on preemption introduced by the FDA in 2006 «does not merit deference.»»

One logical alternative argument starts with the same premise as preemption — that «the FDA requires a device that has received premarket approval to be made with almost no deviations from the specifications in its approval application.»

Basing liability expressly on a branded manufacturer's compliance with federal law should give rise to impossibility preemption.

(1) extending negligent misrepresentation beyond «business transactions» to product liability, unprecedented in Texas; (2) ignoring multiple US Supreme Court decisions that express and implied preemption operate independently (as discussed here) to dismiss implied preemption with nothing more than a cite to the Medtronic v. Lohr express preemption decision; (3) inventing some sort of state - law tort to second - guess the defendant following one FDA marketing approach (§ 510k clearance) over another (pre-market approval), unprecedented anywhere; (4) holding that the learned intermediary rule does not apply whenever a defendant «compensates» or «incentivizes» physicians to use its products, absent any Texas state or appellate authority; (5) imposing strict liability on an entity not in the product's chain of sale, contrary to Texas statute (§ 82.001 (2)-RRB-; (6) creating a claim for «tortious interference» with the physician - patient relationship, again utterly unprecedented; (7) creating «vicarious» breach of fiduciary duty for engaging doctors to serve as expert witnesses in mass tort litigation also involving their patients, ditto; and (8) construing a consulting agreement with a physician as «commercial bribery» to avoid the Texas cap on punitive damages, jaw - droppingly unprecedented.

In a more recent case, Globetrotter Software, Inc. v. Elan Computer Group, Inc., the court elaborated on the decision in Zenith by holding that an allegedly «bad faith» patent assertion must pass the «objective baselessness» standard to survive federal preemption of state - law counterclaims for tortious interference with prospective economic advantage and unfair competition.

But banks, with the help of the U.S. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, have been seeking preemption of some state consumer protection and insurance laws.