Virginia Uranium, Inc. v. Warren
Supreme Court of the United States
1Opinion of the Court
C
If the AEA doesn't occupy the field of radiation safety in uranium mining, Virginia Uranium suggests the statute still displaces state law through what's sometimes called conflict preemption. In particular, the company suggests, Virginia's mining law stands as an impermissible "obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress." Hines v. Davidowitz , 312 U. S. 52 , 67, 61 S.Ct. 399 , 85 L.Ed. 581 (1941). On Virginia Uranium's account, Congress sought to capture the benefits of developing nuclear power while mitigating its safety and environmental…
Also in this document: Concurring in the judgment; Dissent.
2Cases cited23 opinions
- United States v. O'BrienSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
- Hines v. DavidowitzSupreme Court of the United States · 1941
- English v. General Electric Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1990
- Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. State Energy Resources Conservation & Development CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Fletcher v. PeckSupreme Court of the United States · 1810
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by123 opinions
- Lomax v. Ortiz-MarquezSupreme Court of the United States · 2020
- Kansas v. GarciaSupreme Court of the United States · 2020
- Uri Marrache v. Bacardi U.S.A., Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2021
- Nicole Nelson v. Great Lakes Educational Loan SCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2019
- In re: Courtney WildCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2021
118 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.