CHICAGO BRIDGE & IRON CO.

v.

CATERPILLAR TRACTOR CO. ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• Marshall v. Lonberger, 459 U.S. 422 (U.S. 1983)
• Fid. Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. DE LA Cuesta, 458 U.S. 141 (U.S. 1982)
  …of courts to consider the question have concluded, in contrast to the decision of the Court of Appeal, that the Board’s regulations, including § 545.8-3(f), do pre-empt state regulation of federal savings and loans,9 we noted probable jurisdiction. 455 U. S. 917 (1982). [*152] II The pre-emption doctrine, which has its roots in the Supremacy Clause, U. S. Const., Art. VI, cl. 2, requires us to examine congressional intent. Pre-emption may be either [*153] express or implied, and “is compelled whether Cong…
• City of Port Arthur v. United States, 459 U.S. 159 (U.S. 1982)
  …d, the basic submission being that under § 5 and the controlling cases the District Court exceeded its authority in [*165] conditioning clearance of the 4-2-3 plan on the elimination of the majority-vote requirement.5 We noted probable jurisdiction. 455 U. S. 917 (1982). M HH Perkins v. Matthews, 400 U. S. 379 (1971), held that annexations by a city are subject to § 5 preclearance because increasing the number of eligible voters dilutes the weight of the votes of those to whom the franchise was limited bef…