BALL, DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE OF MICHIGAN, ET AL.

v.

ARMOUR & CO. ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• Nat'l Petroleum Refiners Ass'n v. Fed. Trade Comm'n, 482 F.2d 672 (D.C. Cir. 1973)
  …m is increasingly considered unreliable, see Potomac Passngers Assn v. Chesapeake & Ohio R. Co., 154 U.S.App.D.C. 214, 220-222, 475 F. 2d 325, 331-332 (1973), cert. granted, sub nom. Nat’l. R. R. Passenger Corp. v. Nat’l. Assn. of R. R. Passngers, 411 U.S. 981, 93 S.Ct. 2273, 36 L.Ed.2d 957 (1973), for it stands on the faulty premise that all possible alternative or supplemental provisions were necessarily considered and rejected by the legislative draftsmen. See American Trucking Assns v. United States,…
• Fleming v. McENANY, 491 F.2d 1353 (2d Cir. 1974)
  …nance Corp., 360 F.Supp. 720 (D.Conn.1973), on remand from Supreme Court, 405 U.S. 538 (1972) ; Hernandez v. European Anto Collision, Inc., 487 F. 2d 378 (2 Cir. 1973) ; Mitchell v. W. T. Grant Co., 263 La. 627, 269 So. 2d 186 (1972), cert. granted, 411 U.S. 981 (1973).…
• Automated Med. Labs., Inc. v. Hillsborough Cnty., 722 F.2d 1526 (11th Cir. 1984)
  …uspended, and revoked as prescribed by regulations.... 42 U.S.C.A. § 262 (1982). This Court does not find that the statute contains express language indicating pre-emption. CL, Armour and Company v. Ball, 468 F. 2d 76 (6th Cir.1972), cert. denied, 411 U.S. 981, 93 S.Ct. 2267, 36 L.Ed.2d 957 (1973) (federal statute in question expressly provided that requirements in addition to, or different than, those made under the statute may not be imposed by any state). . “Federal regulations have no less pre-emptiv…