Misplaced Pages

Rutledge v. Pharmaceutical Care Management Ass'n: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 21:00, 20 December 2024 editLethargilistic (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users7,610 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit Revision as of 21:03, 20 December 2024 edit undoLethargilistic (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users7,610 editsNo edit summaryNext edit →
Line 13: Line 13:
|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|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|docket=18-540|volume=592|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>

==See also==
*'']''


== References == == References ==
Line 39: Line 31:
| case = {{ussc|name=Rutledge v. Pharmaceutical Care Management Ass'n|docket=18-540|volume=592|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/592/18-540/case.html | justia = https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/592/18-540/case.html
|
|
}} }}


Revision as of 21:03, 20 December 2024

2020 United States Supreme Court case
Rutledge v. Pharmaceutical Care Management Ass'n
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided December 10, 2020
Full case nameRutledge v. Pharmaceutical Care Management Ass'n
Docket no.18-540
Citations592 U.S. ___ (more)
Holding
State statutes are only preempted by ERISA if they have an "impermissible connection" to ERISA plans or they "refer to" ERISA plans.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Clarence Thomas · Stephen Breyer
Samuel Alito · Sonia Sotomayor
Elena Kagan · Neil Gorsuch
Brett Kavanaugh · Amy Coney Barrett
Case opinions
MajoritySotomayor, joined by unanimous
ConcurrenceThomas
Laws applied
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974

Rutledge v. Pharmaceutical Care Management Ass'n, 592 U.S. ___ (2020), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that state statutes are only preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) if they have an "impermissible connection" to ERISA plans or they "refer to" ERISA plans.

See also

References

  1. Rutledge v. Pharmaceutical Care Management Ass'n, No. 18-540, 592 U.S. ___ (2020).

External links

  • Text of Rutledge v. Pharmaceutical Care Management Ass'n, No. 18-540, 592 U.S. ___ (2020) is available from: Justia
Stub icon

This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub. You can help Misplaced Pages by expanding it.

Categories: