Article Abstract:
The US Supreme Court in Cipollone v Liggett Group, Inc held that federal law preempts state law in failure to warn claims, but not in claims of breach of express warranty, conspiracy to defraud or fraudulent misrepresentation. This decision is a setback for manufacturers who have relied on preemption as a defense in product liability cases. However, the court interpreted the statutory preemption provision inconsistently, which will make the decision difficult to apply by lower courts. The preemption issue has not been settled and will need further clarification.
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
Article Abstract:
The US Supreme Court in Lechmere, Inc v NLRB overruled the NLRB's balancing test for determining when nonemployee union organizers must be allowed onto the employer's property. The court adhered to its 1956 decision in NLRB v Babcock & Wilcox Co, rather than the more flexible rule adopted by the NLRB. This decision is inconsistent with the court's policy of deference to administrative agency decisions under Chevron USA Inc v Natural Resources Defence Council Inc and will tend to discourage deference in future cases.
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
Article Abstract:
The US Supreme Court decision in Lucas v South Carolina Coastal Council, although clarifying some aspects of regulatory takings doctrine, will probably have only a limited practical impact. The court ruled that regulations which eliminate all economic benefit from a property constitute takings, unless the regulation falls under the state's common law nuisance principles. However, regulatory takings law still contains considerable uncertainty concerning the test for economic diminution of value.
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic: