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 interactivelyNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
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.}}'  Revision as of 21:00, 20 December 2024 edit undoLethargilistic (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users7,589 editsNo edit summaryNext edit →
Line 8: Line 8:
|USVol=592 |USVol=592
|USPage=___ |USPage=___
|Docket= |Docket=18-540
|ParallelCitations= |ParallelCitations=
|Prior= |Prior=
Line 30: Line 30:
}} }}


'''''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 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>


== References == == References ==
Line 37: Line 37:
==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
}} }}


Revision as of 21:00, 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

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 ERISA if they have an "impermissible connection" to ERISA plans or they "refer to" ERISA plans.

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: