| Revision as of 20:57, 20 December 2024 editLethargilistic (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users7,589 edits ←Created page with '{{subst:SCOTUS-case|Rutledge v. Pharmaceutical Care Management Ass'n|592|___|December 10|2020|State statutes are only preempted by ERISA if they have an "impermissible connection" to ERISA plans or they "refer to" ERISA plans.}}' |
Latest revision as of 21:12, 20 December 2024 edit undoLethargilistic (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users7,589 edits added Category:United States federal preemption law using HotCat |
| (5 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) |
| Line 8: |
Line 8: |
|
|USVol=592 |
|
|USVol=592 |
|
|USPage=___ |
|
|USPage=___ |
|
|Docket= |
|
|Docket=18-540 |
|
|ParallelCitations= |
|
|ParallelCitations= |
|
|Prior= |
|
|Prior= |
|
|Subsequent= |
|
|Subsequent= |
|
|Holding=State statutes are only preempted by ERISA if they have an "impermissible connection" to ERISA plans or they "refer to" ERISA plans. |
|
|Holding=State statutes are only preempted by ERISA if they have an "impermissible connection" to ERISA plans or they "refer to" ERISA plans. |
|
|Majority= |
|
|Majority=Sotomayor |
|
|JoinMajority= |
|
|JoinMajority=''unanimous'' |
|
|Concurrence= |
|
|Concurrence=Thomas |
|
|
|LawsApplied=] |
|
|JoinConcurrence= |
|
|
|Concurrence2= |
|
|
|JoinConcurrence2= |
|
|
|Concurrence/Dissent= |
|
|
|JoinConcurrence/Dissent= |
|
|
|Dissent= |
|
|
|JoinDissent= |
|
|
|Dissent2= |
|
|
|JoinDissent2= |
|
|
|PerCuriam= |
|
|
|NotParticipating= |
|
|
|LawsApplied= |
|
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
'''''Rutledge v. Pharmaceutical Care Management Ass'n''''', {{ussc|volume=592|page=___|year=2020|el=no}}, was a ] case in which the court held that state statutes are only preempted by ERISA if they have an "impermissible connection" to ERISA plans or they "refer to" ERISA plans.<ref name="case">{{ussc|name=Rutledge v. Pharmaceutical Care Management Ass'n|volume=592|page=___|year=2020}}.</ref> |
|
'''''Rutledge v. Pharmaceutical Care Management Ass'n''''', {{ussc|volume=592|year=2020|el=no}}, was a ] case in which the court held that state statutes are only preempted by the ] (ERISA) if they have an "impermissible connection" to ERISA plans or they "refer to" ERISA plans.<ref name="case">{{ussc|name=Rutledge v. Pharmaceutical Care Management Ass'n|docket=18-540|volume=592|year=2020}}.</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=2020-12-13 |title=Opinion analysis: Court rejects challenge to states’ authority to regulate pharmacy reimbursements |url=https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/12/opinion-analysis-court-rejects-challenge-to-states-authority-to-regulate-pharmacy-reimbursements/ |access-date=2024-12-20 |website=SCOTUSblog |language=en-US}}</ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
==See also== |
|
|
*'']'' |
|
|
|
|
|
== References == |
|
== References == |
| Line 37: |
Line 29: |
|
==External links== |
|
==External links== |
|
* {{caselaw source |
|
* {{caselaw source |
|
| case = {{ussc|name=Rutledge v. Pharmaceutical Care Management Ass'n|volume=592|page=___|year=2020|el=no}} |
|
| case = {{ussc|name=Rutledge v. Pharmaceutical Care Management Ass'n|docket=18-540|volume=592|year=2020|el=no}} |
|
| justia = https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/592/___/case.html |
|
| justia = https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/592/18-540/case.html |
|
| cornell = https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/592/___ |
|
|
| findlaw = https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/592/___.html |
|
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
| Line 48: |
Line 38: |
|
] |
|
] |
|
] |
|
] |
|
|
] |
|
|
] |
|
|
] |
Supreme Court of the United States